Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Middlesbrouģh Corporation Bill [Lords](by Order.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. FIELDEN: I beg leave to present a Petition to the House from Mr. Astley Bell, Mr. William Birtwistle, Mr. Herbert Johnson Mothersill and 3,620 other members of the Manchester Royal Exchange. The signatories, representing every branch of the cotton industry—our largest export trade—strongly petition the Government to prevent the exploitation of the markets of the Empire by foreign nations, who not only exclude our goods by high tariffs from their overseas possessions, but capture our markets by manufacturing goods on a basis of wages, hours, and a low standard of living, which make it impossible for producers in this country, even when equipped with the most up-to-date machinery and the most economical methods of management, to compete. The revival of our export trade is the only practical and permanent remedy for the serious state of unemployment which must rapidly increase if the unequal treatise and conventions which deter us from taking adequate measures for our protection are not speedily revised. Unless prompt and effectual measures are taken, Lancashire will be left with a diminishing population upon whose shoulders will fall the serious burden of keeping in being semi-derelict towns and villages whose public utilities, such as housing, water, gas, electricity, sanitation, and the like, equipped for a fully employed area, will have become redundant and an increased charge upon a lessened body of ratepayers.
Wherefore the petitioners pray that prompt action be taken to remedy the evils referred to in the Petition.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government would be prepared to remove the embargo on Russian imports concurrently with the release of the two British prisoners in Russia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I had an interview with M. Litvinoff at the Foreign Office on Monday last after which an agreed communique was issued which has been published in the Press and which stated that we had arranged to have another meeting in a few days' time. M. Litvinoff came to see me again this morning, and we shall have a further meeting. I hope that my hon. Friend and the House generally will agree that it is undesirable for me to make any further statement while these conversations are in progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in Northern China; what the terms of the recent armistice were; whether they have been carried out; and whether the League of Nations was in any way consulted or given information with regard to the proceedings?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the Japanese forces have been withdrawing to the Great Wall, but I cannot say whether the withdrawal is yet complete. Part of the neutral zone is still occupied by Manchukuo forces. The terms of the armistice are of some length, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will have them printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The League of Nations was not consulted during the negotiation of the armistice, but its terms have been communicated to the Secretary-General by the Chinese Delegation at Geneva.

Mr. MANDER: What steps are being taken to persuade the Manchukuo troops to vacate China?

Sip J. SIMON: I think it would be best to see the terms of the armistice, and to follow what is then the position. We must not assume that the terms of the armistice are not going to be carried out loyally.

Following are the terms referred to:

I. The Chinese Army will withdraw to the west and south of the line from Yen-Ching to Chang-Ping, Kao-Li-Yung, Sun-Yi, Tung-Chow, Hsian-Ho, Pao-Ti, Lin-Ting-Kow, Ning-Ho and Lu-Tai and undertakes not to advance beyond that line and to avoid any provocation of hostilities.
II. The Japanese Army may use aero planes or other means to verify the carrying out of the above Article. The Chinese authorities will afford them protection and facilities for such purpose.
III. The Japanese Army, after ascertaining the withdrawal of the Chinese Army to the line stated in Article I, undertakes not to cross the said line and not to continue to attack the Chinese troops, and shall entirely withdraw voluntarily to the Great Wall.
IV. In the region to the south of the Great Wall and to the north and east of the line as defined in Article I, the maintenance of peace and order shall be undertaken by the Chinese police authorities.
V. The present Agreement shall come into effect upon its signature.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (AEROPLANES).

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the decision of the German Government to order two armed police aeroplanes contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles; and what steps he is taking to make it clear that no rearmament of Germany by unilateral action in a breach of treaty will under any circumstances be permitted?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no confirmation of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards rearmament of Germany by unilateral action, the views of His Majesty's Government are contained in the statement communicated to the German Government and published in the newspapers of the 19th September, 1932.

Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement in the Press to-day that Mannheim is to be the first town to have these armed police aeroplanes, and will he make inquiries through his representatives in Germany?

Sir J, SIMON: I cannot assume, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, that everything which he or I read in any newspaper is necessarily proved to be correct, but I am, of course, making inquiries.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: How does the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) who asks these questions, expect to carry out the conditional clauses of the Treaty of Versailles if his other policy is carried out of reducing British naval, military and air forces to a sixth Power standard?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS (EMERGENCY LIST).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the officers now borne on the emergency list of the Royal Navy have received any form of naval training since the date of their last retirement from the active list; and whether it is proposed to take any action in this matter?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): It is not the present practice to provide systematic naval training for officers on the emergency list, and no alteration in this practice is contemplated.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the functions of these officers are, if they are not to have training?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The emergency list is a rather flattering name for officers retired at their own wish—I am one myself—who are ready to go to sea at any time. I think if we desired opportunity for training we should probably be given it.

ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of officers and ratings employed in the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress"; the last occasion on which this vessel went to sea; and the annual cost for pay of personnel and maintenance of this yacht, respectively?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: There are 40 officers and ratings borne in the ship, but only 16 of these could be dispensed with if the ship were not retained. The ship has not been used by the board for her proper duties since 1929 owing to the extra expense which would be incurred. The net annual cost of keeping the ship on her present basis is £2,600 for personnel and £950 for maintenance.

Mr. DAVIES: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think it worth while to keep this ship going, in view of the fact that she has not been to sea for many years?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I am still hoping for better times, and when those times come, I shall ask the House for enough money to commission this ship, because I think it very important in connection with the duties of the Board of Admiralty. But I assure the hon. Member I shall not ask for that money while times are bad.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the First Lord who preceded the right hon. Gentleman had this yacht re-conditioned and used her for a cruise?

FUEL AND AMMUNITION COSTS.

Mr. LUNN: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the additional expenditure of tons of fuel and rounds of ammunition for the home and Mediterranean fleets to be incurred in the present financial year as compared with the previous year; and what is the financial cost of the same?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The expenditure of fuel and ammunition in the home and Mediterranean fleets has been somewhat increased by the removal of the almost penal restrictions which were necessary last year. I regret that it would not be in the public interest to publish any figures in regard to the expenditure of fuel or ammunition in the fleets.

NEW CONSTRUCTION.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons for the delay that appears not infrequently to occur in the actual laying down of ships ordered under the programmes of new construction?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The date for a ship's completion is fixed with reference, not to the date upon which her keel is laid down, but to that on which she is ordered. When the order is given, the shipbuilders require a considerable period, varying with the circumstances of the case, for the necessary preparatory work and the purchase and assembly of material. The laying down of the keel thus marks, not the beginning of the ship's construction but the completion of an important stage thereof.

RESERVE FLEET (INSPECTION).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Vice-Admiral commanding the Reserve Fleet is to tour the British Isles in his cruiser flagship for his annual inspection this year; and if so, what is the estimated cost or whether, in the interests of economy, he is to travel from Portsmouth to Devonport, Chatham, and Rosyth by rail?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The annual inspection and training cruise of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Reserve Fleet, in his flagship (His Majesty's Ship "Effingham") will be carried out this year between 17th June and 31st July, when various ports will be visited, the programme being arranged to facilitate the embarkation and disembarkation of reservists due for training. In view of the great importance of providing training opportunities for these reservists, the principal purpose of the cruise would not be served were the Vice-Admiral to travel by rail. It has not been possible in the time available to prepare an estimate of the small additional expenditure involved.

FLEET TARGET SHIP.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated expense in the present financial year of running His Majesty's Ship "Centurion" as a fleet target ship with the attendant destroyer His Majesty's Ship "Shikari"?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The estimated expense in the present financial year of running these two vessels is £50,200.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has the Admiralty any scientific means of registering the accuracy of firing without this expense?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: We conaider it is the best practical experiment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WEST INDIES (COCOA INDUSTRY).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the grave position of the cocoa industry in the West Indies, he intends to consider any scheme for co-operating with other Governments of cocoa-producing countries to restrict the supplies of cocoa?

Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has recently received proposals for a scheme of this nature from the Governor of Trinidad, and will give them his careful consideration as soon as he has received the observations of the Governors of the Gold Coast and Nigeria, to whom particulars of the scheme have been communicated by the Governor of Trinidad.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it the case that plant disease is likely to restrict the production of cocoa very greatly?

Mr. BLINDELL: I have not the slightest idea.

NEW FACTORIES.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new factories established in this country with or without foreign assistance, and employing 25 or more people, for each of the last six years?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that the desired information is not available.

OVERSEA OFFICIALS (SEA PASSAGES).

Mr. RANKIN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that officials serving overseas whose passages are paid by the State travel solely by British ships?

Mr. BLINDELL: It is well understood that, when passages for officials are provided by Government, they are to be booked by British ships in the absence of exceptional reasons to the contrary.
The existing practice is based upon this principle, and no special steps are therefore necessary.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISPLAYS, HENDON).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total cost of the Royal Air Force displays at Hendon for the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, respectively; and whether he will consider the discontinuance of such displays, in view of the appeals for economy advocated by His Majesty's Government in all State Department?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to him and to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) on 17th May last. I would, however, take this opportunity of emphasising two points. Firstly, the display is essentially a collective culmination of the annual training programme of the Royal Air Force which is in any event necessary to the maintenance of efficiency. Secondly, the whole cost of providing the necessary enclosures and stands, and other incidental expenditure at Hendon is borne by non-public funds. No additional charge is therefore imposed on the Exchequer, and consequently no economy would result if the display were discontinued in its present form.

Mr. DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply by that that the Royal Air Force could not possibly be efficient without these displays?

Sir P. SASSOON: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the particular work which is done in the displays is the culmination of the training, and that any expenditure incurred, as far as the spectators are concerned, came out of receipts.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the Hendon displays are indirectly the cause of many deaths from aerial acrobatics, apart from the normal necessities of air training?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, I do not think so at all.

Mr. MABANE: Do not these displays allow the electorate to see how well their money is being spent?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PROPOSED HIGH-LEVEL BRIDGE, CARMARTHEN.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has reached a decision concerning the scheme submitted to him by the Carmarthenshire County Council for a high-level bridge over the River Towy at Carmarthen?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Discussions are still proceeding between my Department and the county council regarding the cost and relative advantages of alternative schemes.

Mr. EVANS: Could the hon. Gentleman give some idea as to when a decision will be reached in view of the great inconvenience caused by the present arrangements?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (TELEGRAPH POLES).

Major OWEN: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fatal accident which occurred at Penyclip, Penmaenmawr, Carnarvonshire, on the 19th instant, due to the deceased striking a telegraph pole while travelling in a van; whether the remarks of the coroner regarding the accident have been brought to his notice; and whether, in view of the danger to human life arising from the presence of telegraph poles on the roadside, he will give instructions for the immediate removal of such poles from narrow roads such as the Bangor-Conway road?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I am making inquiries, and will write to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as they are completed.

Major OWEN: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General that it is time that he gave orders to his engineering department to make a general survey of these telegraph poles on the roads
throughout the country; as they are a positive source of danger in view of the present traffic growth?

Sir E. BENNETT: I think it would be very much better to wait for the report.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS (PEDESTRIANS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Colonel GOODMAN): 14.
asked the Minister of Transport in view of the increasing number of coloured-light traffic signals, what steps he is taking to protect the walking public from the dangers of filtering traffic?

Mr. STANLEY: The Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs gave careful consideration to this matter and deal with it in their report, which will be published shortly.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will they also consider the question of protecting the traffic against the filtering pedestrian?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman must put that question down.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT (for Mr. RUTHERFORD): 15.
asked the Minister of Transport how many signs marked "Please cross here" have been erected in the London area; what was the cost; and whether these signs have had the effect of concentrating street crossing by pedestrians?

Mr. STANLEY: 433 signs with the legend "Please cross here" have been erected at 216 crossings in the Metropolitan Police district at a cost of about £2,200. A large number of persons make use of the crossings indicated by the signs, and I have no reason to doubt their usefulness.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider assisting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) by having one of these signs erected near the vicinity of his seat?

POOR LAW RELIEF (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. LUNN: 18.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the total expenditure on all forms of Poor Law relief for the year ended 31st March, 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): No, Sir. I am afraid that it will be a long time before my right hon. Friend will have received from the local authorities the particulars on which a definite reply or even a valid estimate could be based.

Mr. LUNN: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give a definite answer before the end of the Session?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid not. I am afraid that I misled the hon. Gentleman last time. We received last March the actual expenditure in respect of the previous year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can we get it when we meet again, seeing how necessary these figures are in connection with the discussions that will take place an unemployment insurance? Will he at least see that the hon. Gentleman gets the figures when we meet after the Recess?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We shall not get the items of actual expenditure till early in the new year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not very necessary, in view of the important discussions on unemployment insurance, to get at least some basis of figures when the new Bill is introduced after the Recess?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will consider that.

SCOTLAND (AGRICULTURAL MACHINES, TESTS).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what report he has received as to the demonstration carried out at Sorn, Ayrshire, on 24th May regarding the efficacy of certain draining machines, drag-line buckets, and turf-cutting machines; and whether he is satisfied that these machines have proved thoroughly satisfactory for their purposes at this test?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have read with interest a Press report of the demonstration to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but no detailed report has been received. I am glad to see that the tests confirm the favourable impression created by previous experi-
ments with such machines in Lewis, as recorded in articles in the Scottish Journal of Agriculture for April, 1932, and April of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 23.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider the advisability of restoring the cuts in the special campaign pensions, in view of the prevailing feeling of dissatisfaction among the recipientsdue to the fact that there is no reduction made in the amount of the officers' good service pensions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir; the change must be regarded as permanent. But I would point out that, although the pensions to which my hon. Friend refers are not comparable, the rate of the special campaign pension has been substantially increased since the War, whilst the rates of annuities to officers and soldiers for meritorious service have remained unchanged since before the War.

LONDON TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS (REVIEW).

Captain WATT: 24.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is proposed to hold a review for the London divisions of the Territorial Army in place of the review that was cancelled on 24th June; and, if so, is he in a position to state when?

Mr. COOPER: I regret that it will not be possible to arrange another date for the review this year owing to the near approach of the camping season.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of proposing to the Irish Free State the submission of the question in dispute about the payment of the land annuities to a tribunal of five members, consisting of two members chosen by each country from within the British Empire, and a chairman from outside the British Empire nominated by the four members already selected?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regarding the constitution of a tribunal to settle disputes between two members of the British Commonwealth of Nations has been explained on many occasions by my right hon. Friend, more especially in the Debate in the House on 4th July last, and I cannot add anything to what he has said on the subject.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the Dominions Office aware of the great injury that is being done to the British Empire by the prolongation of this dispute and the embitterment caused by it, and has the Dominions Office no suggestion to make to bring it to an end?

Mr. MacDONALD: We have made various suggestions for bringing it to an end, and we shall always be ready to reach a reasonable settlement.

Sir M. WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman not think the National Government are strong enough to make a concession in a matter of this kind, which, after all, is largely one of punctilio?

Mr. LUNN: What are the various suggestions that have been made for a settlement? Is it not a fact that there has only been one suggestion, and that this is the only alternative that is likely to bring about a settlement?

Mr. MacDONALD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Debates which I have mentioned.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is there not a very great matter of principle involved in this dispute? I hope the Government will take very great care—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

AFFORESTATION, CARNARVONSHIRE.

Major OWEN: 26.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many acres have already been planted under the Forestry Commission scheme in the county of Carnarvon; what is the number of acres now in course of being planted; and what is the programme of planting for the next five years?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: 5,144 acres have already been planted by the Forestry Commission in the county of Carnarvon, including 54V in the season recently ended; the programme of planting for the next five years is 2,675 acres.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do those figures represent the normal development in planting, or are we to understand from the plantings this year that there has been a period of diminution since the present Government took office?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: No. This is the normal programme in respect of the planting land which the Forestry Commission have in hand or in sight.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have not the sums available to the Forestry Commission been materially reduced in the past two years?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Oh, certainly.

Major OWEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what proportion of acres planted have been replanted and what proportion have been new planting altogether?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I think the whole of these are new planting, so far as the Forestry Commission are concerned. Whether under former owners some portion of them were woodland, I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SURTAX.

Mr. LEONARD: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Surtax collected in 1931 from the 12,000 persons who in 1932 dropped below the level at which liability to Surtax would fall upon them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that this information is not available.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. MABANE: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present nominal loss per cent. made by the Issue Department of the Bank of England on gold purchased for the Exchange Equalisation Account; whether that loss is made good to the Issue Department from the funds of the Ex-
change Equalisation Account; and whether credit is taken by the Exchange Equalisation Account for the gold held on its behalf by the Bank of England at the current day-to-day price?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No loss is incurred by the Issue Department of the Bank of England in consequence of the purchase of gold for the Exchange Equalisation Account. Where gold is purchased or sold on account of the Issue Department itself, the accounting arrangements are governed by the terms of Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1932, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

GERMANY (INTERNATIONAL 5½ PER CENT. LOAN).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any communication has passed since 22nd June between His Majesty's Government and the German Government or the Bank of International Settlements with regard to the proposal by the German Government to default on its declaration of good faith at the time of issue to maintain both interest and sinking fund on the London portion of the German Government International 5½ Per Cent. Loan, 1930?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

CLOSED FACTORIES.

Mr. G. HALL: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons thrown out of employment as the result of the closing down of the 355 factories during last year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR: (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. HALL: Does it not seem strange to hold an inquiry such as was held last year into the number of foreign factories established in this country and the number of persons employed in those new factories, and yet we cannot get the information as to the number of men displaced by the closing down of other factories?

Mr. HUDSON: The information was got in respect of new factories, and if the hon. Member wants information about those closed down, I will consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to whether he can get it.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Were not these factories closed down because of the Labour Government?

Mr. HALL: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has not seen the question which I put to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. ROBINSON: Will my hon. Friend not only obtain the figures for this year, but the figures for 1930 and 1931 so that the House can judge of the improvement of trade?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not know whether those figures are available, or, if they were, whether the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) would like them.

Mr. HALL: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the question which I put to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the opening of new factories for the past six years?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, I have seen that question.

BENEFIT (CASH FROM POST OFFICES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if Employment Exchanges are able to secure cash direct from the post offices for the purpose of paying unemployment benefit?

Mr. HUDSON: The course suggested in the question, though perhaps theoretically possible, would be administratively very inconvenient, and is in practice not adopted.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not true to say that the Employment Exchanges can get cash from some post offices for the purpose of paying unemployment benefit, and does the answer imply that the Exchanges are not getting any cash from post offices for paying benefit?

Mr. HUDSON: The Employment Exchanges do not get cash from post offices for the payment of benefit except in a few cases of outlying Exchanges where benefit has to be paid at a distance and where the Exchanges are able to get money orders on the Post Office.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are post offices in the country to which the managers of the Employment Exchanges actually proceed with their bags and receive money with which to pay out unemployment benefit?

Mr. HUDSON: Not that I am aware of. The practice of Exchange managers is to get any cash they require from the local bank.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman take advantage of his position to get to know the real truth about these withdrawals from the Post Office?

Mr. HUDSON: I should be pleased to have any information which the hon. Member has in support of his allegation, but as far as I know it is not done.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman take note for the future that money is available in a State Department for the purpose of paying benefit; why should the Ministry of Labour go to a private bank when the cash is available in a State Department?

Mr. HUDSON: Because it is administratively very much more convenient, and costs very much less.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are people allowed to have in the Post Office Savings Bank accounts of the size that would be required?

WOMEN (BENEFIT).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women who have been refused benefit by tribunals administering the Anomalies Act and the number of such women who have been refused benefit who continue to register as being available for employment?

Mr. HUDSON: Between 19th October, 1931, and 31st May, 1933, 237,252 claims by women were disallowed by courts of referees in Great Britain under the Anomalies Regulations. I regret that the statistics do not enable me to give the number of separate individuals whose claims were so disallowed, or the number who continue to register for employment after disallowance.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the difference in number and what has been the falling
off in the number of women registered since disqualification?

Mr. HUDSON: I shall be glad to get the figures if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (HUNGARIAN PROTEST).

Lieut-Colonel MOORE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the protest lodged with the League of Nations by the Hungarian National Society in regard to the atrocities committed on unarmed and unoffending Hungarian nationals by a group of Rumanian peasants in Transylvania on 29th May; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir; in view of the statement contained in my hon. and gallant Friend's question that this protest had been lodged with the League of Nations, I caused inquiries to be made of the League Secretariat and so far as I can learn no such protest has been lodged. On the other hand, it has been announced in Budapest that the Rumanian Government have informed the Hungarian Government that an energetic inquiry was to be made into the incident which appears to be referred to, and that the Hungarian Government would be made acquainted in due course with the final result of this inquiry.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman then not aware that in the Hungarian House of Commons a statement was made by the Hungarian Foreign Minister that a protest was being lodged with the League of Nations in respect of this outrage?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not aware of it. I took note of the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend made a statement in his question which I had to investigate, and my information is that my hon. and gallant Friend was misinformed when he stated that a protest had been lodged with the League of Nations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Patronage Secretary how far the Government propose to go to-night?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended in order to obtain the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimate; the Second Beading of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; and the Committee stage of the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation (Temporary Provisions) Bill. It is also proposed to take the Motions to approve the marketing schemes for pigs and bacon, and the Report stage of the Sea-fishing Industry Money Resolution, which items are exempted Business. The Government do not anticipate a late sitting.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With regard to the Supplementary Estimate, seeing that there has been an alteration of business, will the Secretary of State be in charge and be present to explain it?

Captain MARGESSON: If the Secretary of State is not able to be present himself, his very efficient Under-Secretary will be present.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Apart from that, may I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, seeing that business has been altered, whether it is not the first duty of the Secretary of State on an important Supplementary Estimate of this kind to be present to explain it, in view of the fact that there are certain differences in the circumstances from those in the last Debate in which he is involved?

Captain MARGESSON: I think that the House will understand that the Secretary of State is heavily engaged in the deliberations of the World Economic Conference, and I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary is perfectly able to explain what has taken place.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the business have been adjusted so that the Secretary of State could be present, as he is involved in speeches which were made on the last occasion when this subject was under consideration, which seemed to run counter to what has taken place since? It is unfair both to the right hon. Gentleman and to other Members who took part in the discussion if he is not present. I am not doubting the efficiency of some other person, but a point was raised in the last Debate
in which the Secretary of State was personally involved, and he is the only person who can explain it.

Captain MARGESSON: As the hon. Member knows, and the House must be aware, the World Economic Conference is engaged every day, and it is necessary to get the Supplementary Estimate in a short space of time. I have no doubt the Under-Secretary will be perfectly able to answer satisfactorily the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman personally promised us on the last occasion that the House would not be asked again to deal with this matter until the Royal Commission had reported. Now the House is being asked to deal with the matter, although the Royal Commission has not reported, and the Minister himself ought to take personal responsibility for his failure.

Captain MARGESSON: That, obviously, is a point which must come out in the Debate, and which I am not competent to answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a Rule of this House which has been carried out by most Governments, that when a-Minister makes a statement from that Box, and it has to be altered, he himself should come to the House and state the reasons, and not get someone else to deputise for him? If he has to be present at the conference during the day, could not other business be taken now, so that this Supplementary Estimate might come on at night, when the Secretary of State might be here—in view of the contradictions which have arisen and, for which there may be a perfectly good reason?

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Surely it is vital to the conduct of business in this House that the Rule should be observed that whenever a group of Members consider it important that a Minister should be here to explain his policy or his previous speeches, he ought to be here?

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is it not well known in this House that an Under-Secretary's voice is always his master's voice?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Captain Mar-gesson.]

NOTIFICATION OF POVERTY.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the ascertainment and publication of the minimum cost of living, the notification of and keeping of lists of particulars of wages below the minimum cost of living and of employers responsible therefor, and for other purposes relating thereto.
The Title of the Bill seems to be rather a vague one. The object of the Bill is two-fold. The first is, to draw attention to a class of wage-earners in

The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 39.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[3.2: p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pybus, Percy John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Apsley, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Rrecon)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Aske. Sir Robert William
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rankin, Robert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harbord, Arthur
Rea, Walter Russell


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Harris, Sir Percy
Reld, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hartland, George A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Robinson, John Roland


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ross, Ronald D.


Bernays, Robert
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Bossom, A. C.
Horobin, Ian M.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, Brig.-G en. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Selley, Harry R.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Christie, James Archibald
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clarry, Reginald George
Knight, Holford
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Law, Sir Alfred
Somerset. Thomas


Cooke, Douglas
Lees Jones, John
Soper, Richard


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cowan, D. M.
Mabane, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Curry. A. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart


Denman, Hon. R D.
Magnay, Thomas
Summersby, Charles H.


Dickie, John P.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Doran, Edward
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Eady, George H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
White, Henry Graham


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Morrison, William Shepherd
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie(Banff)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ormiston, Thomas
Worthigton. Dr. John V.


Fermoy, Lord
Palmer, Francis Noel



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.




Blindell.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Walihead, Richard C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. Cordon




 Macdonald.

this country whom, in our discussions, both in public and private we are apt too much to neglect. In these days of very severe unemployment, it is perhaps too hastily assumed that those who are fortunate enough to have employment are necessarily beyond the reach of want. Not only is that not so, but there is a large class of employed persons in this country who are not only not beyond the reach of want, but who have no body charged with their protection. It is impossible to obtain, officially or unofficially, accurate figures to show what proportion of the population they represent, but it
is not unreasonable to assume that it may be counted in millions. There are approximately 18,000,000 persons registered for National Health Insurance; 1,250,000 have their conditions of employment regulated by a wages board; some 4,500,000 persons are in trade unions, and I should think that it would not be unreasonable to suppose that there are at least another 4,500,000 whose conditions of employment are regulated by trade union conditions. The number may even be larger. There is the agricultural population whose conditions of employment are regulated by the agricultural wages board, there are other categories of employed persons whose wages are regulated by conciliation boards, and so on. That leaves, in addition to the unemployed, a very large proportion of the employable and employed persons in this country who have no official body to look after them and who, in many cases, are receiving a wage which is below the subsistence level.

I do not believe that any hon. Member would consciously wish that state of things to be perpetuated. It is too easily assumed that the unemployed are the only persons who are suffering from misery. That is not the case. There are, I am sorry to say, large classes of people, contributing by their labour towards the wealth of the State, who are receiving grossly inadequate remuneration, and that is not only unfair to them, but it is unsound industrially, financially and economically. That brings me to my second point, which is that much of the economic misfortune from which the world is suffering to-day is due to under-consumption. If the consumption power of the class to which I have referred could be raised by some percentage which I leave vague—let us assume that it would be 25 per cent.—that would go far to help, not the whole way, but would go far to resolve the difficulty of under-consumption which is so great an affliction in this country and other countries.

To come to the provisions of the Bill. They lay down that it shall be the duty of the Minister of Labour to plan out the country into ascertainment areas, which would be large areas in which it would be assumed that the cost of living was similar and homogeneous. In those areas it would be the duty of the Minister to
ascertain, by any means that he wished, what was the minimum cost of living for an adult person of either sex and for an employed person of either sex. As soon as that ascertainment was finished, it would be published. The next portion of the Bill enforces the registration at employment exchanges by employers of all cases in which they are paying wages below that ascertained minimum. There is naturally an unwillingness to suffer compulsion, or to disclose what are thought to be private concerns, but in this case I think that there are two valid arguments in favour of the Bill. The first is that where an injustice is being perpetrated which is completely out of touch with the sympathy and with the spirit of the 20th century, it should be brought to light; secondly, good employers have everything to gain and nothing to lose by publicity of that kind.

Beyond that, the Bill does not go. It provides for the registration of those lists of employers who are employing men or women below the wage fixed as the average cost-of-living figure. It makes no provision for enforcing higher payment; it leaves that duty to public opinion. The promoters of the Bill believe that public opinion will enforce a better standard of wages more easily and with less friction than legislation, and certainly more quickly. The public conscience in regard to these things is very much more easily stirred than it was even 25 years ago. I do not bring forward this Bill as a solution either of the unemployment question or of any other economic question, but as a reasonable and helpful contribution towards a solution of that problem. It is not primarily my work but the work of a very distinguished industrialist, Mr. Morris of Brighton, a large and successful employer himself, who has worked at this problem for many years. I am very happy to assist him in bringing these ideas, of which I heartily approve, before Parliament for approval.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: It is not general, when this House is asked for leave to bring in a Bill, for any hon. Member seriously to suggest that the Bill is not worth printing. In this case I am going to suggest that. I believe that this Bill to be so bad in its essence that the public should not embark on the expense
of printing it. Everybody will agree with and sympathise with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) in his first remarks about his desire to do something, if anything can be done, to improve the conditions of those who, while in employment, are receiving wages below the subsistence standard—if any such persons there be. He suggested that there was a great number. He may be right, though personally I doubt it. But, however few there be, we would all join with him in wishing that something should be done for them. At the beginning of his remarks, I was inclined to be in agreement with him, but, when he came to the actual proposals of the Bill, I was a little at a loss to know which of two motives had inspired its introduction—whether he was endeavouring at the expense of the House of Commons to enhance his already considerable reputation as a wit, or whether he was desiring to add to that large class of those who do useless work at the Government expense, so that even he might find a haven of rest.
I ask the House to consider what would be the effect of the Bill. The idea is to divide the country into ascertainment areas—large areas, the hon. Member said—for the purpose of finding the cost of subsistence. But everybody knows that the cost of living varies, not only between town and town and between village and village, but almost between house and house, and even between individual and individual. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is a fact. What would be a good subsistence for certain hon. Members opposite would be scanty for my hon. Friend, and the House might lose or see diminished one of its greatest ornaments. That is a thing which we should all deplore. In all seriousness, however, it is absurd to suggest for a moment that any area bigger than a village could really be suitable for finding a recognised subsistence level. One of the great troubles with regard to the cost of living figure has always been that any figure that may be taken is in itself faulty for a large section of the population.
How would this Bill operate? It would, of course, involve the setting up of a large staff of paid Government officials, and would thereby put a burden on the taxes, and possibly on the rates, which would immediately have the effect
of decreasing employment. People would be scattered round the country endeavouring to arrive at a figure which I submit cannot in fact be arrived at at all. The variations in the circumstances of the people of the country are so many that it is useless to try to arrive at any estimated figure in any area but a very small one. Either the areas would be large, as foreshadowed by my hon. Friend, in which case the figures produced would be perfectly useless for a substantial portion of the area, or the areas would be very small, the number of them would be very great, and the cost of the scheme would be so prodigious as to make it prohibitive. When that is done, what then? The figures are published, though I submit they would be perfectly worthless, and then employers of labour who pay wages below the published figure would, if I understood my hon. Friend correctly, be invited or compelled to notify that fact, and their names would be published. I have no objection to publication, but I am trying to point out that it would be perfectly valueless. I do not think it would be objectionable, except in so far as the whole machinery would be expensive, but I do think it would be perfectly useless.
I admit that the circumstances of a Ten Minutes Rule Bill do not give an opportunity for explaining the Bill Clause by Clause, but certain questions arise. Are these returns from the employers to give the circumstances in which the wages are earned, such as the length of time worked? If they are. I maintain that there again the expenditure and trouble involved in collection will be far in excess of any benefit received. If they are not, they will conceal essential facts. While I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his endeavour to do something to benefit a class whom we also wish to benefit, I think that his suggestion is a joke. I think that it is a bad joke, and that, if this publication were to take place at all, it should be at his expense, and not at the expense of the public, when it might find a ready sale.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harcourt Johnstone, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Curry, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Ernest Young, and Mr. Holdsworth.

NOTIFICATION OF POVERTY BILL,

"to make provision for the ascertainment and publication of the minimum cost of living, the notification of and keeping of lists of particulars of wages below the minimum cost of living and of employers responsible therefor, and for other purposes relating thereto," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Bill, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bath and Bury and District Joint Water Board) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Pharmacy and Poisons Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the district of the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mid-Glamorgan Water Board) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Chepping Wycombe." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chepping Wycombe) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Samaritan Free Hospital for Women to provide and equip additional accommodation and to make certain charges therefor; and for other purposes." [The Samaritan Free Hospital for Women Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BATH AND BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

THE SAMARITAN FREE HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN BILL [Lords]

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Second Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933.

CLASS II.

DOMINION SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £540,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1934, for sundry Dominion Services, including certain Grants in Aid, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant in Aid to the Irish Free State in respect of Compensation to Transferred Officers.

3.48 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My right hon. Friend would have been only too glad to be here this afternoon in order to defend the policy which the Government propose, and to meet any criticisms which may be made; but he is at this very moment attending an extremely important meeting in the Geological Museum at South Kensington, and, therefore, in his unavoidable absence, I shall take the hint of my Noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield), and give my celebrated performance of a gramophone record representing "His Master's Voice."
Earlier in the afternoon a question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear the point referred to. The suggestion he made, if I understood him correctly, was that my right hon. Friend, when this matter was discussed—or rather, when one of these matters, namely, the Supplementary Estimate referring to Newfoundland, was discussed—in this Committee some few months ago, gave an undertaking that the question would not be raised again until the Report of the Royal Commission which is now examining the whole question had been received. I think the hon. Member misunderstands what my right hon. Friend said on that
occasion. What he said was that the question of a further Supplementary Estimate would not arise until June, and he then said that he expected that the Report of the Royal Commission would be ready and would be presented before that. He expected it, but he certainly gave no undertaking to this Committee that the report actually would be presented, and that the matter actually would not come before the Committee again until the report had been completed.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Will the hon. Gentleman give the date?

Mr. MacDONALD: It was 7th March. I will also give the hon. Member the exact quotation that my right hon. Friend gave. He said, in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton:
I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance right away that, when the report of the Commission is received and has been considered by the Government, the House will have an opportunity of seeing the recommendations and will be able to judge then what ought to be done in the circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1933; col. 1107, Vol. 275.]
He did not bind himself in any way to a pledge that the report would be received before June and before the matter had to be considered again in this Committee.
The Supplementary Estimate divides itself into two parts. The first refers to the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The financial position in the Protectorate has been causing anxiety for some time past, and my right hon. Friend at the end of last year appointed a commission to inquire into the whole financial and economic position of the territory. The commission has presented its report. It is being considered, and it will be published and laid before Parliament as a Command Paper in the near future. It makes two things quite clear, in the first place that the Budget of the Protectorate is unbalanced, and, secondly, that there is no immediate prospect of restoring equilibrium between revenue and expenditure. The primary causes for the state of affairs there are twofold. In the first place, the world economic depression has struck that country, as it has every other, and, in the second place, very great difficulties were created there by an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Southern Rhodesia. That necessitated somewhat
extensive defensive measures being taken by the administration of the Protectorate to try to prevent the spread of the disease into its own territory and, in the second place, the Union Government imposed an embargo on exports from the Northern part of the territory. That was not the end of the trouble. The administration was not successful in keeping out foot-and-mouth disease. It spread into the Protectorate at the very beginning of this year and further evil consequences to the territory followed from that. In the first place, additional money had to be spent on anti-foot and mouth disease measures and, in the second place, the surrounding countries imposed an almost complete embargo on exports from the whole of the Protectorate. That was blow number two.
Since the commission presented its report, a further disaster has befallen the country, because it is now suffering one of the severest droughts of recent years. None of this series of disasters could have been foreseen. None of them could have been under the control of the administration, and the obvious result of the coincidence of them all at once has been to reduce revenue and considerably to swell expenditure. It is now estimated that the deficit in the Budget of 1933–34 will amount to just over £120,000. To that has to be added the deficit at the end of last year, amounting to about £19,000, and it is to meet that situation that we are asking for the £140,000 mentioned in the first part of the Supplementary Estimate.
The second part refers to Newfoundland. Hon. Members are familiar with the position there because it was discussed in the Debate of 7th March last. For some considerable time past the financial position in the Dominion has been unsatisfactory and, since the autumn of 1931, special arrangements and efforts have been made to rectify the situation. But most unfortunately last December, when the time began to approach for the payment of the interest due on the external debt of the Dominion, it became clear that there would be, at any rate, a partial default unless we came to the rescue. We entered into close consultation with the Canadian Government and an agreement was reached that they should join with us in advancing to the Dominion the moneys required for the
January payment. At the same time it was agreed that a Royal Commission should be sent out to Newfoundland, consisting of one member appointed by this Government, one by the Canadian Government, and a third by the Newfoundland Government, to inquire into the whole question of the future of Newfoundland, and particularly into these financial and economic difficulties that have arisen, with a view to finding a satisfactory and more permanent settlement of the difficulty. It was thought at that time that the Commission would have completed their task by now and that we should have had the report and been able to consider it and decide upon a more permanent constructive policy, but I regret to state that the Commission have not been able to complete their task. They arrived in Newfoundland in the middle of March. Since then they have been carrying on their investigations in Newfoundland and in Canada, and the problem is extremely intricate and difficult. I understand that the members of the Commission believe that a long-range constructive policy is required, and they have not been able yet to reach a final conclusion as to what that policy should be.
In the meantime they have been able to furnish us with information as to the present position. The Budget for this year was drawn up with very greatly increased taxation and with considerable economies, and it was hoped that it would balance, but, unfortunately, owing to causes somewhat similar to those recited in connection with the first part of this supplementary Estimate, owing to the world economic depression and the terrrible slump in the prices of Newfoundland's chief products, the Budget is not going to balance, and it is clear that there will be a considerable deficit once more. Therefore, we have had now again to consider the question of the interest payment due on the Dominion's external debt on 1st July. We hoped we should be able to make an interim arrangement, as we did on the last occasion. We have had discussions with the Canadian Government, and we hoped they would join with us again in making an advance to tide us over this difficulty pending the report of the Royal Commission. The Canadian Government did not find it practicable to join with us on this occasion and, therefore, His Majesty's Government have had to consider whether
they would make the total advance that was required.
We have decided to do that for two reasons. In the first place, we felt that it would be extremely unfortunate if any part of the British Empire defaulted on its external debt, particularly at the present time. In the second place—this is the more immediate consideration—we felt that the position of Newfoundland ought not to be prejudiced pending the report of the Commission. For that reason, therefore, we would like to make an advance which would enable the interest payments to be made on 1st July. The terms of the loan which will replace the advance will be decided in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations. It is a purely interim arrangement, pending the report of the Commission. We are very anxious to get that report as early as possible. We shall not have this problem satisfactorily settled until we can see along what lines we can construct a permanent policy. We have no reason to suppose that the report will not be at our disposal before this particular difficulty arises again.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What reason has the hon. Gentleman for saying that?

Mr. MacDONALD: They will have had six months more than they had last time. I think my hon. Friend will recognise that it is an extremely complicated problem that they have to solve. This is a tentative arrangement, pending the receipt of the report. We believe that the position of the Dominion should not be prejudiced pending the arrival of the report, and we hope that the Committee will approve of our policy.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Member say whether the external debt of Newfoundland is a debt which has trustee status in this country?

Mr. MacDONALD: Part of it. The debt is partly owing to the United States, partly to Canada and partly here, and by far the greater part of that which is owing here enjoys that status.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grenfell.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Would I be in order, Captain Bourne, in moving "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," on the following ground—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in order at this moment, because I have called the hon. Member for Gower.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
It is very unfortunate for the Committee and for the Under-Secretary who has just spoken that the Secretary for the Dominions is unable to be here today. It is not enough for the hon. Member to ride away with a denial that there was a definite undertaking that the commission's report should be available before his right hon. Friend came to the House again. I remember that on the evening when the previous Debate took place no hon. Member on this side took part. The Dominions Secretary when he asked for the grant-in-aid said that the Newfoundland Government, the Canadian Government and the British Government had come to an agreement, and he said that a commission was going straight away to Newfoundland with instructions to investigate the conditions there. He told us that they were to return and present a report to this House, with details of the conditions in Newfoundland, and that that would be done before a further sum of money was required. The commission, we were informed, were to apply themselves immediately to the situation, and their instructions were to report in time for us to consider the situation before June. Those were the words used. It was. with that assurance that we remained in our places and allowed the Vote to pass.
We do not blame the Under-Secretary for the absence of his chief, but we really should have required the presence of the Dominions Secretary to-day. We are sorry to have to utter some strong criticisms of the hon. Gentleman, because he for the moment represents his Department. We have very strong complaints against his presence here without his chief. We do not mind his addressing the Committee, but his chief should be here to answer for his own pledges and promises. The hon. Member has done what the Committee expected of him. He has made, as usual, a very clear statement, and he has been able to tell the Committee all the information he has. He is not responsible for the absence of
the commission's report, but he knows quite well that the Committee cannot proceed to vote large sums of money without getting the information from him. We are taking this opportunity of protesting very strongly indeed. We want to go beyond this immediate sum of money. It is not solely the £450,000 with which we are concerned. We want to examine the whole question of Dominion debts, the special relations and the special circumstances to which the Under-Secretary has called attention. We are dealing with Newfoundland and Bechuanaland, but the question this afternoon is not confined to the Dominion and the Protectorate. This is more or less a general question. We cannot adjudicate and decide on one of these cases to-day, and on another case to-morrow, and imagine that we are making any contribution to the solution of the difficulty that prompts these people to come here.
We do not move a reduction of the Vote because we wish to add to the difficulties of Newfoundland, or the difficulties of the Dominions Secretary, but we are compelled to call attention to the postponement of the settlement of these disputes, and we would urge the point of view that in taking these special measures for the relief of Newfoundland to-day, and of Bechuanaland, and some time ago of Austria, we are not doing anything that approaches the real settlement which some day must be reached by the consent and will of this House. The process appears to be that when a debt occurs and interest is not paid the Government lend the debtor more money. That is what is being done to-day. We have been told that the financial position of these Governments is hopeless and impossible, that they are unable to balance their Budgets year after year. We know that they cannot recover themselves, because they are too hopelessly in debt. His Majesty's Government therefore say: "Let us lend them more money, and in that way persuade ourselves and them that we are conferring an advantage upon them." It is a case of adding new debts to old, a sort of homeopathic treatment.
That is the kind of policy pursued, and there is no indication that there is to be an end to it. The patient is almost on the point of collapse, and we do nothing to
relieve him, but we maintain him in a condition of semi-collapse. The Dominions Secretary should have been here. He is the sort of direct person who would face up to the situation. He is incapable of self-deception. The right hon. Gentleman has prepared this plan. The Under-Secretary need not apologise. He described himself as "His Master's Voice." He really is not. He could not do the imitation. He possesses neither the vocabulary nor the apparent innocence of his chief. The Dominions Secretary stands "on his own" in these matters. However, there is a serious side to this matter. This kind of economics is unworthy of the House of Commons; it is unhelpful to the country, to the Dominions, and it only postpones the solution of the difficulty. The whole thing is unscientific. I call this kind of finance "hoodoo" economics, a kind of witchcraft business in which everyone deceives himself and everyone else. It is reliance on a formula prepared by the high priests at the Treasury or the Bank of England. They are the people who concoct these formulas and prepare the incantations.
The Newfoundland people are a hardworking people, and they are entitled to every kindness. But this is not a kindness to them. They cannot get any relief by this procedure. They will not get relief by anything done in this House to-day; their obligations will remain as they were last month and last year. It is a real unkindness to persuade ourselves and persuade these people that we are. doing the least bit towards relieving them of their difficulties. Time and again in this House the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared it to be the policy of this country—a policy which he recommends to the Economic Conference—to help debtor countries to meet their obligations. This is not the way to help debtor countries. The way to help is to reduce those countries' debts. If anything was being done to reduce the burden of debts of Newfoundland we would be considering this question in an entirely different spirit. We are trying to prevent Newfoundland from defaulting, but as soon as she recovers we are to demand our full pound of flesh. Newfoundland is to be kept in a state of suspended animation, in the hope that when she does recover she will be able to pay her debts.
I come from a part of the country where there has been great industrial depression. An hon. and gallant colleague of mine in the House the other day, in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to the enormous obligation of the local authority in his neighbourhood which had borrowed money at 6½ per cent. and had to meet the interest and repayment charges in the course of the next 60 years without any possible prospect of relief. Here is a neighbourhood almost entering bankruptcy and no assistance is to be provided, but this House pretends to relieve the people of Newfoundland and to pay their debts for them. Advances are made in order that the liabilities of Newfoundland may be met without in reality doing anything to relieve the people of Newfoundland. What we have done and are doing to-day is to pay the interest of the moneylenders who hold Newfoundland and other parts of the Empire in bondage. This House is voting the resources of the mother country in order to meet the claims of moneylenders at home who have lent money to Newfoundland under the pretence of assisting Newfoundland. The money will not go to Newfoundland at all. We are handing over £400,000 in order to pay to the moneylenders in the City of London the interest which they expected to get but cannot get from Newfoundland. It is a very dangerous precedent.
Newfoundland is not the only Dominion which is in difficulties. There are the two great Dominions of Australia and New Zealand, and anyone who read the speech of Mr. Forbes at the World Economic Conference or his speech at the Conference at Ottawa cannot but feel sympathetic towards these people who are our own kith and kin and are so far from the mother country and from the markets for their produce, and who have been, through no fault of their own, saddlied with the enormous responsibility year after year of the repayment of money to this country. They find themselves in the position, because of the fall in world prices of agricultural products, of being compelled year by year to hand over twice the volume of commodities required even four years ago in order to pay the interest charges on the debt which they owe to us. We are virtually strangling the economic life of those two Dominions because of our insistence upon the repay-
ment of debt. No one is unsympathetic towards the poor fishermen, the iron-ore miners and the small farmers in Newfoundland. I have seen those people and have shared their life. I know the conditions under which they live. The lot of the people in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and other provinces is very hard indeed.
It is the duty of this House to face up to the real nature of the problem. To postpone this matter by sham generosity six months after six months is only to delude ourselves and the people whom we pretend to serve. If this is the right policy, do not let us assume that it will end here. It must be applied in the case of each Dominion, and if the people at home get to hear of the generosity of the Secretary of State for the Dominions they will want to know why that generosity cannot be applied to the derelict areas of the North-East Coast, and South Wales and other places in this country. We heard a taunt yesterday from the Front Bench that a Member on this side of the House had a bow and arrow mind. It was a joke. We took it as a joke, and there was no offence meant, I am sure. But this is a bow and arrow policy. It is a question of applying stone-age finance. It is a case of the regulation of Dominion finance under the pretence that we are all so nice and friendly and are members of one family, and have a common interest.
We on this side protest against the further fooling with this kind of thing. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs were here to-day, we should ask him to apply his practical mind to this problem. I join the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary in responsibility, and I ask them to get down to the real problem and work for the readjustment of debts between us and all the Dominions—and Empire settlement of debts, if you like—without waiting for the World Economic Conference or for America and other States. Why cannot we proceed with an Empire settlement of debts in order to enable Newfoundland, Canada, New Zealand, all those communities of hardworking, practical people, whose hopes and aspirations have been damped down, to get real relief? We are not satisfied that what the Government propose is the best way to deal with this matter, and we protest and shall vote against
this Estimate unless the Minister, before the end of the Debate, gives us fuller satisfaction.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said that the Under-Secretary had given the Committee a full and clear statement in submitting the Supplementary Estimate to the Committee. The Under-Secretary addressed the Committee with that clearness and charm to which we are accustomed and which we appreciate. but there were at least two material aspects upon which he did not give us information. They are very material to the question, and we ought to have definite enlightenment upon them before the Committee agree to vote this sum of money. The hon. Gentleman did not carry the matter any further than when the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs submitted the original Estimate early this year. It is very material that the Committee should be told definitely whether or not this is to be the last of such proposals to be submitted. There was nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said to-day which would lead us to suppose that he may not be coming again in the month of November with an exactly similar proposition.
The hon. Gentleman said that a certain amount of information had been received from the Royal Commission. I do not know whether it is due to the receipt of such information that there has been an alteration in the view of His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada with regard to this transaction, because I think the Committee learned with surprise that they are no longer partners in this deal. Previously they went in on a fifty-fifty basis, and they have now withdrawn. The Committee may reasonably ask, and expect to be told, the reasons which have led the Dominion Government to withdraw from their share in the transaction. We have been told that the Royal Commission have given some explanation and have parted with some conclusions which they have reached, and the Committee would like to know whether it is due to that fact that the Dominion Government have made up their minds with regard to this proposition. The hon. Member for Gower maintained that it was not a
kindness to Newfoundland to continue this procedure and add to their ultimate indebtedness. I am not prepared to express an opinion on that point. When we come to the Report of the Royal Commission we shall be in a better position to know the state of the Dominion.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Captain Bourne, may I call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that, when less than an hour ago a Division was called, there were many more than 40 Members present.

Mr. WHITE: The Committee should know the reason why the Dominion Government have withdrawn from their partnership in this particular deal. We are anxious to do everything possible to help the Dominion which, like many other parts of the Empire, is suffering from the special distresses of the time, but we have embarked upon a very serious principle if we are to guarantee the interest and meet the obligations in respect of loans which have been contracted under conditions over which we have no control, and which have been spent upon objects which are equally outside our control, and it will lead us into very deep water. Indeed, we may be led to take on what may be an impossible task if we are asked to extend this principle to other parts of our overseas possessions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) suggested that there had been a breach of faith in coming down to the House with a Supplementary Estimate before the Royal Commission had reported, and the Under-Secretary has suggested that that is not the case. I do not wish to be an arbiter on that particular point, but my impression, after hearing the Debate, was that, whether there was an undertaking or not, there was in the mind of every Member present at the time a very clear understanding that this matter would not be raised again until the commission had reported. I feel sure that if that had not been the case there would have been a much more prolonged Debate, and the Committee would have found it more difficult to make up their minds whether or not to vote on this proposition.
It is not merely a question of what was said on that occasion, but many Members had in their minds, as I had in mine, not what happened on 7th March in the course of the Debate, but the statement which was made at the time the Royal Commission was appointed. We were given the membership of the Royal Commission which, I think, demanded the respect and assent of the House, and at the same time a statement was made with regard to the purposes for which it was appointed. It was not merely to deal with the present question, but also to suggest means by which the present loans, or loans at that time, were to be repaid. It was to proceed to Canada early in March, and we now know that it started its labours towards the middle of March. It was intended that it should complete its inquiries in order to enable decisions to be taken and appropriate arrangements to be made before the debt interest due on 1st July next matured. It is no good splitting words on the matter. Hon. Members had in their minds, not merely what was said on 7th March, but the statement to which I have just referred. It is clear, whether it was literally a pledge or not, that there was an implied undertaking which has not been fulfilled. In view of the uncertainty with regard to the future attitude on this matter, some assurance should be given whether this is, or is not, the last occasion on which Estimates of this kind are to be produced and brought forward for sanction, and we are also entitled to ask for a satisfactory explanation as to the reason which led our partner in this transaction to withdraw.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
On the last occasion when this matter was discussed three hon. Members who took part were the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself. It is time that some protest was made against the conduct of business in this House. I do not say this jocularly. Whatever criticism may be applied to the House of Commons, some of us still believe in politics and in the House of Commons. The contemptuous way that we are being treated is beyond a joke. What happened to-day at Question
Time? It is not merely that the Under-Secretaries and the Parliamentary Secretaries are not answering, but the Whips, who confess that they know nothing about things, are answering. The thing has gone to such an extent that even Under-Secretaries are not deigning to come to the House of Commons. The World Economic Conference, a trade gathering or a flower show are important, but the one place that has ceased to be important is the House of Commons.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture did leave the Economic Conference and come to the House to introduce his Bill. He stated that he felt that he ought to come from the Conference to the House of Commons. Nobody will say that the Dominions Secretary is any less capable than the Minister of Agriculture, but nobody will say that he is any more capable. In ordinary parlance, both Ministers have something to contribute to the World Conference, but if they could spare the Minister of Agriculture yesterday from the Conference, surely it was only common deeency for the Dominions Secretary to come here today. In the group for whom I speak our numbers are small and our powers are limited. Nevertheless, I make a protest, and I say that the time has come for a Vote of Censure on account of the contemptuous way that the House of Commons is being treated by the Government and by Ministers. At Question Time to-day nearly half the questions were answered by the Whips. The House of Commons is still entitled to some rights, and it is time that Ministers showed more regard to the House. But there is more at stake than the attendance of Ministers.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that this was not merely what was said in a speech but the important thing was what was said on the appointment of the commission. Let me read what was said by the Dominions Secretary when the commission was appointed. These words make his presence all the more necessary. It may be true that the Dominions Secretary is of greater value at the Economic Conference than the Minister of Agriculture, and that he could not be here earlier today but he might have been here sometime to-day and we could have taken the. Local Government and Other Officers Superannuation Bill until his arrival.
The Board of Trade Estimates have been put back, because I presume the President of the Board of Trade had to be at the Economic Conference. Surely some readjustment of business might have been made. After stating the Terms of Reference to the Commission, the Dominions Secretary said:
The Royal Commission will assemble in Newfoundland early in March, and it is the intention that it should complete its inquiries in time to enable decisions' to be reached and appropriate arrangements to be made before the debt interest due on the 1st July, 1933, matures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1933; col. 1730, Vol. 274.]
Replying to questions by the right hon. and gallant Member for Neweastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Bridge-ton, the Dominions Secretary made a further statement on the subject on the 7th March. In reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bridgeton he said:
That is not true.
It is becoming the habit of certain superior people to convey the suggestion that we are not telling the truth. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the hon. Member for Bridgeton was not telling the truth. He went on to say:
It would be true if a similar circumstance arose in June, but I explained clearly to the House that I expected to receive the report before June, and therefore the £160,000 addition need not arise until then. I explained that to the hon. Member for Gorbals, and I thought his Leader understood it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1933; col. 1108, Vol. 275.]
Here are quite definite statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will agree with me when I say that if one wishes to raise the level of politics, one ought to see that the things one denounces are not allowed to continue. I am not questioning the Under-Secretary in any way, but he has come here to-day and made a certain statement. He says that they have experienced some difficulties, but he has not told us the nature of the difficulties. He has told us that there is some kind of confidential report. The report is good enough for the members of the commission, it is good enough for anybody else to see, but it is not good enough for the House of Commons to see, and it is not good enough for the head of the Department to come here and explain it. If the Secretary of State had
been doing his duty, we ought at least to have had an interim report as to the difficulties.
What is the practice in connection with any Commission when they encounter difficulties? They present an interim report explaining to the House of Commons, through the Secretary of State, the nature of the difficulties, and asking for longer time. We have had no interim report. We have had not a single scrap of information. We are simply told that something has happened. The report may be ready in six months. I asked the Under-Secretary when it would be ready and he said, in a superior way, that it would be ready then. How do we know that it will be ready? His answer was that the Commission were now tackling their job. They were tackling their job when the Secretary of State made his last statement.

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I said that there was no reason to suppose that the report would not be ready in six months' time. The hon. Member asked my reason for saying that, and I replied—I hope not in a superior way—that the Commission will have had six months more than they had the last time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We have no guarantee that it will be produced then. The House of Commons is entitled to protest against the action of a Cabinet Minister who makes a definite statement that there will be a report by a certain date, and when there is no report he does not come here to explain. We are entitled to Report Progress in order to call attention to this grave dereliction of duty. The Minister of Agriculture stated yesterday that his presence could have been useful at the Conference, but that he thought his presence was necessary in the House of Commons, capable as his deputies are. Capable as the Under-Secretary for Dominion Affairs is, I think the Dominions Secretary, in view of the difficulties that have arisen since the last Debate, ought to have been here. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead said that there might not have been a definite pledge, but those of us who were present considered that it was a definite pledge. (When a Minister or a Member of this House makes a statement I am prepared to accept it. I have never been let
down by a Conservative, a Labour man or a Liberal on such matters, because I have found that they have usually kept their word. If the Under-Secretary says there was no pledge, I reply that the 20 or 30 hon. Members who were present at the last Debate took it that there was a pledge. The least thing that we could have expected was that the Dominions Secretary would have been here to explain the complete change of front.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: When this question was raised I had it in mind, and I have tried to get it confirmed, that it was necessary that this Estimate should be got through before the 1st July, and that that was the reason for bringing it forward to-day; but I also understood that there would be a Report stage. I do not want to cause delay to-night, and if we can have an assurance that on the Report stage, which we must have if this money is necessary by the 1st July, the Dominions Secretary will be here and the matter may be debated in his presence, that might satisfy the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. BUCHANAN: My point is that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been present to-day.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am told he could not be here to-day.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No one would have objected to other business, such as the Superannuation Bill, being brought forward until he came. We may have to readjust business. The Board of Trade Vote was down for to-day, but the business has been altered to suit the convenience of the Government, not our convenience; and the Government should therefore see that Ministers are present. The Government have altered the business to suit their own convenience, and have not had the decency to see that the Minister responsible is present.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to emphasise very strongly the protest made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The position as it is explained becomes infinitely worse than it was before the explanation. The Government arranged this week's Business in which the
Dominions Supplementary Estimate did not figure, it was not in contemplation last Thursday when this week's Business was announced, and yet some time between last Thursday and yesterday it was found that this Estimate had to be through by the 1st July;. and it is to be rushed through the House of Commons, in the absence of the Minister responsible, on a day when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury knew that a large proportion of his own party would be engaged in other places, at a time when they would be engaged in other places; and at a time when a large proportion of Ministers would be engaged in other interests outside the House of Commons.
I want to know precisely where we are in this matter. Were the Government unaware that something had to be done in this matter before the 1st July? Were they aware of it last Thursday? Was the Secretary of State for the Dominions only in touch with the Government as to the arrangement of Business between last Thursday and now, although something definite has to be done before the 1st July? The whole thing represents a mess; it is evidence of serious inefficiency either in the Dominions Office or in the general direction of Government Business—

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN left the Chair,

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Finance Act, 1933.
2. False Oaths (Scotland) Act, 1933.
3. Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933.
4. Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1933.
5. Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1933.
6. Solicitors Act, 1933.
7. Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933.
8. Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Act, 1933.
9. Jesus Hospital (Chipping Barnet) Scheme Charity Confirmation Act, 1933.
1519
10. Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow Act, 1888 (Amendment), Order Confirmation Act, 1933.
11. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and Mental Hospital Order Confirmation Act, 1933.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hereford and West Kent Main Sewerage District) Act, 1933.
13. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Tees Valley Water Board and West Monmouthshire Omnibus Board) Act, 1933.
14. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheffield) Act, 1933.
15. Great Western Railway Act, 1933.
16. Oxford Corporation Act, 1933.
17. Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Act, 1933.
18. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1933.
19. Lyme Regis District Water Act, 1933.
20. Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Waterworks Act, 1933.
21. Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport Act, 1933.
22. Norwich Corporation Act, 1933.
23. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1933.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919: Wythenshawe Parishes (Transfer) Measure, 1933.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,

5.4 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I merely wish to conclude what I was saying when the business of the Committee was interrupted. I think that the Committee would be guilty of an act of gross carelessness if it allowed the Government to proceed with this proposal to-day in the absence of the Dominions Secretary, who is the responsible Minister of the Crown. When we were discussing this matter on the last occasion, the Secretary of State for the Dominions talked in terms of the £150,000 that he required for this purpose. Now, on the Paper to-day, he is asking for £400.000. I want the Com-
mittee to realise what, in his absence, he is asking through the mouth of his Under-Secretary, who has put the case plainly and simply, but has not attempted to lay before the Committee the full facts. Listen to what you are doing. According to the White Paper you are agreeing to enable the Newfoundland Government to meet interest payments due by Newfoundland on 1st July to private investors who are scattered in every quarter of the globe.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the Committee that the Motion is, that I do report Progress. It does not appear to me that discussing the Vote has any bearing on the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. MAXTON: I will, of course, be careful to keep within the limits of the Motion before the Committee, but I am making the point that the Secretary of State himself must be here. That is the reason why we are asking to report Progress. The thing he is asking us to do is not a minor Departmental issue; it is not a routine operation of the Department which is normally handed to the Under-Secretary or a junior Minister; it is high Government policy. I am merely quoting from the White Paper to indicate what we are being asked to do. The terms of the loan to which we are to agree to-day will be determined in the light of the report of the Royal Commission which is now in Newfounland. We are to agree to-day to a Vote of £400,000 of the taxpayers' money to support Newfoundland, the terms and conditions to be arranged afterwards, when a Commission has reported that has been unable to report after nearly four months on the job. The Dominions Secretary knows full well—as my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) said—that you cannot set up precedents of this kind in one part of the Empire and not find them having repercussions in other parts of the Empire—Crown Colonies, Protectorates and Dominions. The right hon. Gentleman regards the matter as of such trivial importance that he absents himself from the House and leaves the matter to the Under-Secretary.
The Dominions Secretary must admit that no serious obstacles have been put in his way, either in the arrangement or in the carrying through of business. This Government has had an easier time
than usual in getting progress with the various proposals that it has had before the House. It comes before us with this business on its own arrangement and, by arrangement with the Opposition, or by request of the Opposition, or by the consent of the House, chooses the day and the time of day when the responsible Minister can be here, and fixes a day within practically 48 hours of a decision having to be taken by this Committee. It is gross disrespect to this House of Commons. Further, it is gross disrespect to the Parliamentary institution. It may be that forces in this country will develop, as forces in other countries have developed, to destroy our Parliamentary institution. I have seen speeches by the Lord President of the Council and by the Prime Minister praising the Parliamentary institution and asserting their determination to stand for it. If that be so, let them give evidence themselves to this House and to the nation that they, the principal figures in Parliament, have some respect for that institution, and not allow one of the responsible Ministers of the Crown to say: "The House of Commons does not matter; any social engagement or outside conference, or even any entertainment, is sufficient to take me away from my responsible duties."
We are not going to stand for it. If this House of Commons goes, well and good; we shall know how to face up to the situation and how to put our point of view in the altered circumstances. But while the institution is here we are going to insist that it be worked, and that the people who are sent here to represent the people of the country are going to have all the rights that have been customary in this place since the days when it still enjoyed a certain measure of respect in the eyes of the people. We ask others in this House who have some regard for their own dignity and some respect for the constituencies and constituents which they represent, to support us in the Motion to adjourn this Committee until such time as the responsible Minister of the Crown comes here and tells us in a respectful and intelligent manner precisely to what we are being committed.

5.14 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I should like the Under-Secretary, in reply to the Motion, to answer three points that I desire to put, and which indeed I ought
to put, and which will decide, at any rate, my vote upon the Motion. I do not take the point that an indignity is being done to the House by the absence of the Secretary of State. I think that the Under-Secretary has brought the matter forward with quite as great a feeling of responsibility and quite as well as, possibly even better than, the Secretary of State would have done. Having been an Under-Secretary myself, I naturally feel a little inclined to stand up for the rights of Under-Secretaries and allow those who are as fully informed on their job, and who do it as well as the hon. Member does it, to put forward matters for which, to my mind, they are responsible to the House of Commons.
My three points are these. Why, if this matter is so urgent and has to be got through before Saturday, was not this item of Government business in the original programme for the week? Why was it only put in along with other minor matters when it was found that the President of the Board of Trade would be unable to be here to-day for the discussion of the Vote for his Department? Secondly, is it a fact—as my hon. Friend who spoke from this Bench has stated—that whereas in the previous guarantee the Government of Canada was standing in with us, it has now withdrawn? If that re really so, unless we can get that matter satisfactorily explained, I think that there are some grounds for not going forward with this stage to-day. Thirdly, although I know that the Under-Secretary is not able at this stage to put before us anything in the nature of a White Paper or an Interim Report by the Commission now sitting in Newfoundland, would he be able—because these gentlemen must be at the end of a telegraph or even a telephone line—to put before us by the Report stage anything in the shape of a report from them on whether they think they will be in a position to make such suggestions in their final report as would justify us in lending more money to Newfoundland? If the Under-Secretary is able to cover those three points in his reply, I shall be very much obliged.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I rise willingly, to do my best to reply to the various questions which have been put to me. First, I would like to make it clear that
the Secretary of State does not regard this as a trivial matter. That is not the reason why he is absent. I would also like to make it clear that this Supplementary Estimate was not put down as the first Order to-day with the knowledge in our minds that my right hon. Friend would not be here himself to deal with the question. As a matter of fact when this Order was put down my right hon. Friend fully intended to be here and to take it himself as the first Order to-day. A third point which I wish to make clear is that it is not a social engagement which has prevented my right hon. Friend from being here. As I said, he fully intended to deal with this Supplementary Estimate himself as the first Order to-day, but only this morning a very important meeting in connection with the World Economic Conference was fixed, and he was bound to be present at that meeting. It was not with any idea of this being a trivial matter or any idea of being discourteous to this Committee that my right hon. Friend absented himself from this discussion.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked me some questions. First, he asked whether we really required this Vote by 1st July. The answer is that we do. The payments are due on that date, and therefore it is necessary that we should get this Vote by that date. Secondly, he asked would there be a Report stage. There will, of course, be a Report stage, but I cannot say at what time of the day it will be taken. He asked, thirdly, whether I could promise the Committee that my right hon. Friend would be present during the Report stage. I have no hestation in saying that he will be here in order to deal with any points which hon. Members raise.

Mr. MAXTON: If his other engagements do not interfere

Mr. MacDONALD: Then three questions were put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). He asked, first, why, if this matter was so urgent, it was not put down in the original programme of Business for this week. The fact is that discussions with the Canadian Government were still going on and we were not in a position to know exactly what form the Estimate would have to take. Secondly, he asked why the
Canadian Government; on this occasion have not agreed to join with us in making this advance to Newfoundland. The question has also been asked whether that decision was owing to any special information which the commissioners had sent us as a result of their inquiries. I assure hon. Members that the commissioners have not sent us any information which we did not expect or which could not have been foreseen months ago when this question first arose. The only information which they have sent us is information as to the present position in Newfoundland, and I indicated that in my earlier speech when I said that it showed that there would be a considerable deficit in the Budget of Newfoundland again this year. But there are no new facts which have altered the Canadian Government's decision in this matter. I cannot say exactly what is in the minds of the Canadian authorities in reaching a different decision this time, but I presume that it is for reasons of their own possibly because of Canadian conditions—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Under-Secretary is now getting rather wide of the Motion to report Progress. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) to ask whether any information could be obtained on that point before the Report stage, and while the hon. Gentleman is in order in referring to it, he cannot on this Motion go into the merits of the Canadian Government's action.

Mr. MacDONALD: I do not wish to get out of order, and perhaps I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question more fully than I ought to have done. At any rate, I hope that I have answered it to the satisfaction of hon. Members. His third question was whether we could get into communication with the Commissioners, to see whether they could answer the questions which have been raised. Of course I cannot answer that question straightaway. All I can say is that we will get into communication with the Commissioners and give any information we can at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to be clear on the point as to when the Report stage will be taken. None of us when we started this Debate expected to find the
Secretary of State absent from his place, and we would prefer that he should be present during the discussion of this question. While I accept the statement of the Under-Secretary, I think the Government ought to give us a guarantee that we shall have the right hon. Gentleman here during the Report stage, and that it will be taken at a reasonable time so that we can discuss these matters with him.

5.22 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): In view of the short time available before this Vote must be passed, it will be necessary to take the Report stage tomorrow. To-morrow is a Supply Day and the Vote for the Department of Mines has been put down for discussion. If the Opposition were to negotiate through the usual channels, it might be found possible to take the Report stage of this Supplementary Estimate before 11 o'clock, but if some arrangement cannot be made, I am afraid it will be necessary to take it after 11 o'clock.

Mr. LANSBURY: We cannot very well conduct negotiation on a matter of that kind across the Floor of the House. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, whether it would not be time

enough to take this on Friday. Friday is only a half day in Committee of Supply and I should have thought that it would be possible to alter the programme and to give Friday for this purpose. This is a very important matter, and I think, in the circumstances, the natural thing to do is to accept the explanation which has been offered but to ask for reasonable time for the Report stage.

Captain MARGESSON: Obviously it would not be possible to negotiate on this matter across the Floor of the House, but if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do my best to arrange the business with the parties interested, I will see what can be done. At the moment I do not see exactly how we can do it.

Lieut-Colonel CHARLES KERR: May I raise the question of how this sum is made up?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better raise that question when we get back to the Estimate.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 247.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[5.25 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Thorne, William James


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawton, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick



Edwards,, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. John.


NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. sir Francis Dyke
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Castlereagh, Viscount


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Bernays, Robert
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Christie, James Archibald


Allen, Sir J.Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bralthwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. s.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colfox, Major William Philip


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Colvllie, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Apsley, Lord
Browne, Captain A. C.
Conant, R. J. E.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley, Lord
Cooke, Douglas


Atholl, Duchess of
Burnett, John George
Cooper, A. Duff


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Calne, G. R. Hall-
Cowan, D. M.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Craven-Ellis, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crooke, J. Smedley


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Carver, Major William H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalkeith. Earl of
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset.Yeovil)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Denville. Alfred
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dickie, john P.
Kimball, Lawrence
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Doran, Edward
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Drewe, Cedric
Lees-Jones, John
Selley, Harry R.


Duggan, Hubert John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dunglass, Lord
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mabane, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Slater, John


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine.C.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerset, Thomas


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Malialieu, Edward Lancelot
Somerville, Annesey A. (Windsor)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Forestier-Waiker, Sir Leolin
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyldel


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stewart. J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Milne, Charles
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stuart, Lord C Crichton-


Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, William Shepherd
Summersby, Charles H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Graves, Marjorle
Munro, Patrick
Tate, Mavis Constance


Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Templeton, William P.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Ormiston, Thomas
Thompson, Luke


Grimston, R. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Palmer, Francis Noel
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Patrick, Colin M.
Train, John


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pearson, William G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hanbury, Cecil
Petherick, M.
Vaughan-M organ, Sir Kenyon


Hanley, Dennis A.
Petc, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Hent
Pickering, Ernest H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Harbord, Arthur
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Harris, Sir Percy
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wardlaw-Milne. Sir John S.


Hartland, George A.
Pybus, Percy John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rankin, Robert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Horobin, Ian M.
Rea, Walter Russell
Wise, Alfred R-


Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Womersley, Walter James


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wood, Rt, Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Worthington, Or. John V.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Renwick, Major Gustav A.



Hurd, Sir Percy
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Sir George Penny and Commander


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Southby.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £539,000, be granted for the said Service."

5.33 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Since I have been a Member the House of Commons has been asked to make provision for balancing the Budgets of several countries, some inside and some outside the British Empire, and the last occasion when an application of this kind was before the House it was, if my memory serves me correctly, in respect
of Austria. A number of interesting Debates were staged at that time, in which an attempt was made, on the part of some of us, to get the House to face up to the implications of this sort of legislation. Austria was in difficulties, largely imposed upon her under the Treaty, and she found it necessary to secure financial assistance from France and Great Britain. We rushed to her help—of course, in terms of the Debate, to the help of the Austrian Government—but actually it was
to the help of those who lent the money to Austria in order to secure the moneylenders against Austria defaulting. Whenever a country's debt is in danger and she is likely to become insolvent, immediately other nations go to her rescue, and Great Britain has occupied that place in recent years more than any other country. I understand that a similar arrangement is being made with the Argentine, and now the Committee is being asked to consider supplying £400,000 to support the Newfoundland Government against a possible default on her debts.
The wages of the men whom I represent in this House, the miners of South Wales, are, on an average, £2 3s. 6d. a week, and about 40 to 50 per cent. of the coalfield are unemployed. Unemployment insurance benefit (has been reduced because the world is passing through a crisis, and world commerce has been reduced in volume and nations are defaulting as a consequence. My miners and my unemployed constituents are asked to make a reduction in their standard of consumption because of what is called the economic blizzard, but why not the moneylender? Why should it always be considered that nations must rush to his rescue whenever the is in difficulty? Everybody must go to the wall, but the man who does nothing but abstain from spending the money for himself, and lends it to somebody else, is the man to whose rescue nations come at moments like this.
It is conduct of this sort that is bringing the whole financial system into disrepute. I have had put into my hands in the last week or two a document written by a learned Spanish economist, setting out the point of view of the debtor nations and arguing that there is arising a real conflict of interest between what he calls the Colonial Empire and the old world, based largely upon one or two assumptions, which indeed stand investigation, that the older industrial countries advanced over the last century large sums of money for the development of the Colonial world. These sums of money aggregate colossal amounts, and he estimates that, taking total intergovernmental and commercial indebtedness, a sum of money in the region of £12,000,000,000—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting rather far from the Estimate, which relates strictly to Newfoundland and Bechuanaland.

Mr. BEVAN: I am entitled to argue, Captain Bourne, that this is put forward as part of a general policy by the Government. I am entitled to say that they are seeking to give a credit of £400,000 to the Government of Newfoundland for precisely the same reasons, because of the same underlying assumptions, that have led the Government to the rescue of a number of Crown Colonies and Protectorates and nations outside the Empire, and I question whether the financial considerations leading up to this policy are valid and indeed whether the financial system can continually support a policy of this kind. I suggest that these systems of inter-governmental indebtedness are the principal cause, not of the beginning but of the aggravation, of the crisis through which the world is passing, that the industrial system of the world would have revealed much greater buoyancy and would have recovered from its difficulties much more easily if indebtedness had not taken the governmental form that it has in the modern world. When the debt is between individuals, the debtor goes bankrupt, the creditor fails to get his money, and a large amount of dead wood is cut out.
Bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, compositions between creditors and debtors were recognised in the pre-war world as the ordinary medicine for indebtedness and the financial crisis of 1907 in America did not have the overwhelming catastrophic consequences of the modern crisis because largely the debt was between private individuals and subject to that form of cancellation or writing down, but the modern crisis is entirely different, because vast State enterprises or semi-State enterprises or corporations become involved in the debts, large insurance companies lend money on semi-State assurances and are able to exercise pressure upon the Government, the Government coming to their rescue either by the extension of credits or by various diplomatic means and thus keeping the debtor artificially alive, without providing him with a means of ultimately liquidating his debt. It is now being regarded by economists of great standing that if the modern system of
indebtedness did not take that corporative or governmental form, we should have emerged from this crisis some time ago, and there are people in the Colonial world who are contending—I have heard representatives from Australia contending in a Committee Room of this House—that it is no use the industrial nations like France, Great Britain, and America attempting to shore up the colossal system of debts in the Colonial world. It cannot be done, and it would be far better for the whole debt structure to collapse than to attempt to maintain it by methods of this kind.
Is not the World Economic Conference which is sitting to-day a remarkable example of the futility of the policy that the hon. Member is asking this House to approve in the case of Newfoundland? That Conference is fundamentally concerned with how we can best make it possible for people to whom we have lent money in the last 100 years to pay it back. I suggest that in equity as well as in sound finance it is a good proposition for this House to tell the moneylender, whether he starts with governmental or with private security, that he must take his medicine like the rest. There is no justification in equity for this House to cause Englishmen, Scotsmen, or Welshmen to condemn their own people to barbarous standards of consumption in order to maintain creditors, who lend money at their own risk to other nations, in order to preserve their standard of consumption at a time like this. The other day we had a discussion staged in this House, a packed House, with the Ministry of Health involved, and 150 Conservative Members bringing pressure to bear on the Government to come to the assistance of the distressed districts. At last, after many conferences and meetings, the Minister of Health graciously consented to distribute £500,000 among two-thirds of the population of this country, and that was only after great pressure and great agitation.
The hon. Member comes to the Box today, and because Newfoundland is outside Great Britain—remoteness seems to have some special quality—he asks for £400,000 for Newfoundland, in a House that is almost empty and with the Minister not here. We find £4,000,000 for Austria, £10,000,000 security for the Argentine, and £400,000 for Newfound-
land. So long as the man who wants the money is in some other part of the world, it is high finance, it is sound policy, it is the only way in which the Empire is carried on. When somebody wants it in Rhondda or Lanarkshire or on the Northeast coast or in London, it is ruinous extravagance and the nation cannot afford it. As long as it is somewhere else, in other words, as long as you are able to conceal the identity of the persons who are being helped behind a State form, and say that Newfoundland wants it or Austria or the Argentine wants it, you can conceal the actual transaction. Some of us are rapidly coming to the conclusion—a conclusion that a large nation has already reached with consequences painful for the masses of the population—that the system of usury, which is a natural development of other property forms in the course of the last century, is appearing in the modern world in as immoral a guise as it did in the Middle Ages, except that now the moneylender is in the pew, whereas then he was not permitted inside the church.
The moneylender is strangling civilisation. The Colonial Empire, unable to make these vast payments to the industrial world, protect themselves by all sorts of fiscal means against the industrial world, strangling our commerce and making the situation more and more difficult; and His Majesty's Government, with no policy at all, with no way out of the difficulty, can only suggest giving a credit of £400,000 to Newfoundland, £10,000,000 to the Argentine and £4,000,000 to Austria. Their attitude is to keep it up somehow, and that then perhaps somewhere somebody in some way will bring rescue and the crazy old system can be started over again.
The point of view which we take in this party is that a system of usury is simply another phase of the private property system. It is a vicious system because in these circumstances the moneylender is always able to exact a higher tribute as prices fall. He is in a strongly favoured position, and representatives of the Colonial world are saying that the system of usury should be subject to the same sliding scale circumstances as other claims of property. I want to know from the Under-Secretary if it is true that Newfoundland finds itself faced with an unbalanced Budget as a consequence of
circumstances similar to those in other countries in the new world, namely, fall in price, growing unemployment, increasing failure to sell their products abroad, and so on.
Are the circumstances which cause a deficit peculiar to Newfoundland? I am sorry that the Secretary of State, who has just come in, has not had the benefit of the remarks that I am making. I was asking whether the deficit which has occurred in the Budget of Newfoundland is a consequence of circumstances similar to those which prevail elsewhere, or are they peculiar to Newfoundland? If it is the first case, what conditions are you attaching to this credit? Are the creditors of Newfoundland to be paid a reduced interest or the same interest? If we have to find £400,000 for a creditor, are we making any reduction in his claim? Is he receiving the same interest payment as before? Is he receiving his 4, 5 or 6 per cent. without any reduction in respect of the causes that render Newfoundland insolvent? Is he taking his 4, 5 or 6 per cent. in terms of the present prices of commodities, or are you reducing the percentage pari passu with the fall in the value of commodities? Are we finding this £400,000 or any money for any of these nations in order to pay a higher tribute to the moneylender, and reducing the standard of life of our own population at one and the same time? If my miners in South Wales have to go with £2 3s. 6d. because times are bad, the moneylender must go with his 1 or 2 per cent. instead of 6 per cent. because times are bad. There is no justification either in economics or equity for lending this money without imposing conditions of that kind.
When we required money from America and France it was said at that Box on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf that that was a fair proposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "We need money from America and France, and they are entitled to lay down conditions under which they lend it. If we do not agree with the conditions, we can reject them." The right hon. Gentleman was one of those who said that he agreed with the conditions for we had to have the money. America and France said, "We will not lend you the money unless you balance the Budget, and in order to balance the Budget you must make a reduction of 10 per cent. in unemploy-
ment pay." As a nation we accepted the dictatorship of the creditor. We said, "We want your money very badly; we cannot get it from anybody else, and we will accept your terms." We are the creditor nation now, and we are lending £400,000. We have lent some before, and we shall probably nave to lend some more again.
We have lent large sums of money to other nations. Is it not reasonable that we should lay down conditions too? Is it not reasonable for us to say, "If you want this money from us to balance your Budget, we shall lend it only if you reduce your payments to those who have lent you money"? They say, "We cannot do that because we have lent so much money abroad, and if we say to a debtor that we are going to help him only if he reduces the rate of interest on his internal loans, other nations will say the same." What is the answer to that? It is that my poor people in South Wales, and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Derby, and the constituents of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H Samuel) have to put up with lower standards of life in order to support the rentier consumption of people in other parts of Great Britain. The same thing is happening in Great Britain as is happening in the world. The Colonial Empire is being sacrificed to the older industrial Empire, and is gradually coming down in ruins and dragging us with it.
It is as true to-day as ever it was that the moneylender is the solvent of all State systems. He corrodes and poisons the system and ultimately destroys the system. You are this evening standing in the guise of a barefaced supporter of a moneylending system, and the moneylender will do to the modern States what he did to many other States in mediaeval times. He destroys and corrupts the State and he disorganises the State, and merely because the form of disorganisation takes on a new phase and new means and a new expression, you cannot see the disorganisation which is taking place as a consequence of it. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should state in simple terms why the moneylender should always be supported and the man who produces the wealth of the world should have to put up with lower standards of life.

5.55 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I will not apologise to the Committee for my absence, but I will explain the circumstances. I am sure that the explanation will be satisfactory to all parties. In the Conference which is now taking place, with its numerous committees, one essential to all delegates ought to be an arrangement whereby everyone keeps in touch with all the committees. The result is that as early as 10 o'clock in the morning the British delegation meets and goes through the programme. In addition, every Dominion is represented here, and whatever may be the views of anyone in this House, the country would blame any Government and any Secretary of State for the Dominions who did not take every step to keep the Dominions in touch with each other and with ourselves, not for the purpose of forming a bloc and interfering with their independent action, but with the sole purpose in a conference of this kind of enabling the great British Commonwealth to speak with a unanimous voice if they can do so. I arranged to take this Debate and put off the Dominions meeting until 6 o'clock. I had clearly in my mind that I would be able to take this Supplementary Estimate this afternoon and to attend the Dominions meeting, which is now being held, at 6 o'clock. Unfortunately, another very important meeting was summoned for 3.30. Therefore, I do not apologise. That is the explanation for my absence.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have explained the circumstances of this Vote to the Committee, but I ought in fairness to say that I myself, in order to give effect to a pledge which I gave on the last occasion, was responsible for having the Vote to-day. The Committee will remember that, when dealing with the situation six months ago, I said that before any further commitment was made I would take the opportunity of consulting the House. It is in accordance with that pledge that the Estimate is put down to-day. The circumstances and the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) as to what we intend to do is this: Over three years ago, when Newfoundland found herself in financial difficulties owing to the economic depression, she at
once applied to the Government and asked for advice—not for financial assistance—but for advice and help, knowing the ability of our Civil Service. The result was that we lent to Newfoundland a very distinguished Civil Servant. He went carefully into the finance, and it is fair to Newfoundland to say that all the suggestions that he was able to make for retrenchment of every sort were carried out by Newfoundland.

Mr. BEVAN: Did one of those suggestions include the rate of interest?

Mr. THOMAS: No. The hon. Member has perhaps forgotten that I spoke about three years ago, when the rate of interest in this country and in the Dominions was on a different basis from what it is now, since our conversion scheme. He knows perfectly well that to have assumed a reduction of interest by a Dominion like Newfoundland before we ourselves were prepared to launch our conversion scheme would have been sheer madness. The facts stand out, because only a few weeks ago Australia was herself able to convert.

Mr. BEVAN: Compulsorily.

Mr. THOMAS: Again the hon. Member is very much out of date, because so far from its not being voluntary he ought to know that the issue was underwritten and accepted. Six months ago, notwithstanding all their retrenchments, notwithstanding all their economies, and notwithstanding a real hardship, as real and genuine as any hardship suffered by our people here, the Newfoundland Government found themselves in the position of being unable to meet their obligations in December. I hope the House will not treat too lightly the idea that a Dominion can repudiate obligations, and default, never mind what the circumstances may be. No one can challenge the statement that a default by a Dominion, seeing that Dominion issues have been given the status of a trustee security, would have repercussions far more serious than anyone cares to contemplate. That was the position last December. The position then was such that the first effects of the repercussion would have been seen in Canada. Mr. Bennett happened to be in London last December, and we discussed the whole situation, and as a result an agreement was made whereby Canada and ourselves met the interest
required for that particular payment; but that was conditional upon the appointment of a Commission, with one representative of Canada, one representative of Newfoundland and a chairman representing this country, which was to go to Newfoundland to investigate all the circumstances on the spot and report as to the whole future position of the Dominions.
I do not hesitate to say that anyone with a knowledge of Newfoundland would doubt very seriously whether it is wise to have Dominion Government, with all its expense, for a population such as they have. That was one of the matters for the Commission to report upon—not only to examine that side, but themselves to say what was to be the future of Newfoundland: its relationship, possibly, to Canada, or whether it should be a Crown Colony, or whether it should remain a Dominion, and on what terms. The terms of reference were so broadly drawn that it was the duty of this Commission to investigate all those things. The next difficulty was to select the personnel of the Commission. Lord Amulree, with great public spirit and sacrifice, agreed to act as chairman, and took the risk of going to Newfoundland in the winter to sit there with his Commission. He is still there, and his report is not yet to hand. He had to go to Canada in order to obtain information there. As his report is not yet ready, we were faced with this difficulty. As I have said, we were agreed that it would be a bad thing for default to take place last December, but we did not give the money to Newfoundland free and unfettered. We said, "We admit that there is an obligation," and we gave it on the conditions I have explained and pending the full report of the Commission. For the reasons I have given the Commission have not yet reported, but we hope their report will not be long delayed; in fact, I understand Lord Amulree is likely to leave within the next fortnight.
Now the second payment by Newfoundland is due. I put it to the Committee that this is the position: Knowing nothing of the Report, but keeping in mind the position of this Dominion, the state of its fishing industry and all the terrible hardships it has gone through, if it was right for us to help them last December, what could be more absurd,
now that interest is again due—as it was a few days ago—than to say, "We cannot meet the interest now, as we have not yet had the report"? We felt there was no alternative but to meet the situation. The circumstances have been explained, and I assure the House that immediately we get the report it will be examined. I do not want to prejudice the situation in advance, but every one who has given any consideration to this subject will know perfectly well that there is a very grave and serious position in Newfoundland. I ask the House to believe me when I say that our decision was not lightly taken. I have explained all the circumstances, and can only say that we felt that on balance, and without prejudicing the report, there was no other course before us than the one we have taken. I am sure the Committee will accept my explanation of my inability to be here earlier, and I ask the Committee to agree to the Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why Canada is not sharing with us this time?

Mr. THOMAS: We asked Canada to share in this liability as she did before. That she does not do so is not out of disregard to Newfoundland—I am sure my right hon. Friend will appreciate my anxiety not to say anything which will be misunderstood with regard to Canada's position. There is a change in the financial situation in Canada. Canada had to meet all manner of obligations to certain of her states, and the result was that the Canadian Government found themselves unable on this occasion to share with us as they did in December.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has explained why he was not here earlier, and I am quite sure that everybody accepts the explanation. We are bound to accept his statement that it was public business and only public business which prevented him from attending. I am very glad indeed that he has been able to come now, though I am not sure that we are very much wiser than before, if I may say so with respect. We had hoped that we might learn something of what was in the minds of the Commission. It is not unusual for the chairman of such a Commission, when the work they are engaged upon is not finished at the time expected, to give some explana-
tion to the Government as to the position of the problem they were sent to investigate.

Mr. THOMAS: The Commission is not purely a British Commission. There are a Canadian and a Newfoundland member. Further, they had to make certain inquiries in Canada, because of the close proximity of Newfoundland to Canada and its bearing on the situation. I myself was hoping that perhaps I would be in a position to indicate in some broad, general way what was the Commission's view, but for the reasons I have given I am not in that position, or I would have no hesitation in telling the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: The only thing we can gather from that, though I do not want to stretch anything the right hon. Gentleman has said, is that it leaves the inference that the Canadian side of this bargain—the Canadians—do not think it good enough to take any further risk. I do not think, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not think, that the financial position of Canada is such that she could not share in this if she were quite sure if was a safe thing to do; and we who look on this as part of a world problem which concerns this country probably more than any other creditor country, must feel disturbed—I must say I am very disturbed—about the fact that on scarcely any evidence at all of any future ability on the part of Newfoundland to pay this money we are called upon to foot the bill. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman and our own Government are accepting a responsibility which, sooner or later, we shall as taxpayers, have to discharge without those who were partners with us on the first occasion taking their share.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Government always put us in a position where we have to take action at the moment, because there is no time to give any consideration to an alternative. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not able to be here earlier, because if he had been he would have heard from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that we feel that in this matter British credit is being used to bolster up a system of moneylending or usury which in our judgment cannot possibly be solvent. This is creating the sort of situation
which occasionally faces business men in the East End of London. They renew bills in the hope that next time they fall due they will be able to pay; then they renew them again, and finally the snowball of debt gets so great that they just have to default. In our view that is the situation, as respects the debtor countries of the world, which Great Britain is being called upon to face up to, in a fashion which may ultimately land us in such a financial crisis that none of us can foresee the end. So far as we know, there is nothing in the policy of the Government either in regard to Newfoundland or the other debtor countries, and nothing in the policy of the other Governments, concerned, which points to a solution of the financial difficulties now facing the world.
We shall carry our Amendment to a Division because we see no end to the policy that the Government are embarking upon and carrying through, in regard to this Vote. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the general question, but we want him to understand, and we would like the Government to understand, that we believe the Government are nearing the end of this juggling with money, which is exactly what very poor people do in every part of the world and in our own country. They get themselves more and more entangled, and they are continually renewing and adding to their debt. This is increasing indebtedness. It is the same with the Argentine, and it may be the same in a few days with that payment about which the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) is continually asking, the German debt, as well as with other debts of a similar character. We feel that governments other than our own are playing with this question and that what they ought to consider is how to liquidate and wipe out the debts.
The word "default" is used in a very loose way. I hold the view that if the currency of the nation is depreciated and people do not get the value they expect for their dividends and repayments, that is default, call it deflation or whatever you like. If the British nation does not pay the American Government, that will be default on our part, however much you wrap it up, because we shall not have paid, and that is what default means. The world is in such a position that nations are bound to default, just as firms
and individual men and women have to default.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: People should not borrow.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Baronet says that people should not borrow. He knows perfectly well that this nation has based its prosperity upon lending money abroad to finance the purchase of our manufactured articles. It is in the process of repaying that money without sending out goods that the crisis with

which the world is faced has been produced. I should not be allowed to enter into a discussion upon that aspect of things, but I mention it in order to explain why we oppose this Vote. We think that it is only adding to the financial confusion of Newfoundland and this country.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £539,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 247.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[6.20. p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Malnwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H, (Merthyr Tydvll)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir william
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson. John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobble, William
Leonard, William



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Mr. Tinker and Mr. John.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Conant, R. J. E.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P.G.
Cooper, A. Duff
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Albery, Irving James
Cowan, D. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Craven-Eills, William
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crooks, J. Smedley
Hanbury, Cecil


Anstruther-Gray, W. J;
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cross, R. H.
Harbord, Arthur


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Harris, Sir Percy


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dickie, John P.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Doran, Edward
H engage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, Cedric
Holdsworth, Herbert


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Duggan, Hubert John
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Horobin, Ian M.


Bernays, Robert
Dunglass, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Bossom, A. C.
Emrys-Evans, p. V.
Hunt, Sir Gerald B.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Entwlstle, Cyril Fuliard
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Brocklebank, C. E, R.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Brown, Col. D. c (N'th'ld., Hexham)
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Brig.Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Lewls (Swansea, West)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Ker, J Campbell


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolin
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Burnett, John George
Gibson, Charles Granville
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kimball, Lawrence


Caporn, Arthur Cecll
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Carver, Major William H.
Goff, Sir Park
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gower, Sir Robert
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Greene. William P. C.
Mabane, William


Christie, James Archibald
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Clarry, Reginald George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro',W.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grigg, Sir Edward
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Coffox, Major William Philip
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, John Hamilton


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rea, Waiter Russell
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Renter, John R.
Summersby, Charles H.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sutcllffe, Harold


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Templeton, William P.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Robinson, John Roland
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Martin, Thomas B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thompson, Luke


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Train, John


Mline, Charies
Rutherford. John (Edmonton)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Morrison, William Shepherd
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Munro, Patrick
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Scone, Lord
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Selley, Harry R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Normand. Wilfrid Guild
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ormiston, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Patrick, Colin M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
White, Henry Graham


Pearson, William G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Penny, Sir George
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Petherick, M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,BIIston)
Smithers, Waldron
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Pickering, Ernest H.
Somerset, Thomas
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Somervilie, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wise, Alfred R.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Somervilie, D. G. (Wiliesden, East)
Withers, Sir John James


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rankin, Robert
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Mr. Womersley and Major George


Rathbone, Eleanor
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Davies.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Strickland, Captain W. F.



Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1931.

6.30 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I beg to move,
That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for regulating the marketing of pigs, a draft of which was presented to the House on the 22nd day of June, 1933, be approved.
I have to commend to the House this afternoon two schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which we lay before the House for its approval. The two schemes will be found in the Vote Office, with a report upon them by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, and I think it will be clear from the report that we are fulfilling the statutory duty laid upon us by the Act of 1931 to ensure that the subject of these schemes is specifically brought before each House of Parliament. But the House should not assume that we shall be, by an affirma-
tive vote, imposing these schemes upon the industry. The vote which I hope the House will shortly give is an enabling vote. It will enable these schemes to be laid before each industry—the pig rearing industry and the bacon curing industry—in order that they themselves may determine whether they will accept the schemes. The real point, and I think the only point, which it is necessary for the House to decide, is whether the schemes are suitable, under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, to be put before the industries for decision. I speak of the industries, but it is really one industry. The bacon industry is composed of the pig rearing industry and the bacon curing industry, and I am sure the House will agree that, it is desirable to treat these two schemes as one.
We ask the House to assent to the proposition that it is desirable that these schemes should be put to the industry, affording it the opportunity of reorganising, and giving it powers of self-discipline and power to improve its efficiency both in production and in marketing. I do not think it can be contended that the powers given by the schemes will protect an inefficient industry. The quantities coming into the United Kingdom mar-
ket from abroad will, of course, be regulated, but there will still be the competition, and the very real competition, of quality. The home industry will not make progress unless it takes care to ensure that the quality of the bacon it produces is at least equal to that of the foreign bacon which is displaced, and the pig producer as well as the bacon curer will have to play his part by providing the right types of pigs. I am sure we shall agree that too much must not be expected immediately of the home industry, but the public are entitled to expect a sincere and sustained effort to attain the maximum efficiency as rapidly as possible; and only if that sincere and sustained effort is being proceeded with will the public be satisfied.
These schemes are designed to set up boards whose powers with respect to pigs and bacon respectively will be mainly powers of regulation. The primary functions of the boards will be to enforce throughout the home bacon industry the principle of contract—of, a contract supply of pigs going to a factory, and, by estimating, in conjunction with the other bacon factories, the sum total of these contracts, to make to the Ministry, and through the Ministry to the nation, an estimate of what the home supply will be, and thereby enable us to dovetail that into the supply which we shall expect to obtain from overseas. When this element of stability has been brought into the bacon industry, we hope that the home bacon industry will be able to expand, provided that it is efficient; and to ensure the necessary efficiency, in the direction, for instance, of quality, the boards' powers in addition to those which directly concern supply regulation will be exercised.
It will be desirable in the future that the keystone of the arch should be supplied by the Development Board, which will form the junction between the Pigs Board on the one side and the Bacon Board on the other. We have offered, if necessary, to set up a reorganisation commission which should draft such a scheme, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) knows, for he has given much time and attention to the drafting of another scheme in connection with the milk industry, the working out of such proposals is a task which requires the
highest skill in draftsmanship and the closest attention for many weeks of the most skilful people who can be obtained, and it will be often the case that farmers or bacon curers will not be able readily to draw upon such technical skill. So far, however, the Development Board has not been set up, and I merely indicate to the House that it still remains to be brought in to complete the picture which I am laying before the House this afternoon.
The schemes which we have before us are further of interest in that for the first time a Great Britain scheme has come before the House of Commons. We have had Debates, and interesting Debates, upon other schemes which have been submitted and which have been passed by the House. There was a Debate of considerable interest, in the course of which diversity of opinion was expressed, upon the Scottish scheme with respect to raspberries, and there was also, of course, the very much more important Scottish scheme with respect to milk, which also was sanctioned by the House. There is in existence an English scheme as regards hops, but that also is confined to one nation—in this case the nation South of the Border.
The interest of a Great Britain scheme lies in the fact that it is an example of schemes which, increasingly, we shall have to adopt in the future. The difficulty of dovetailing the Scottish milk scheme into the English milk scheme will be very considerable. There is a large flow of milk across the Border—a flow estimated at some 2,000,000 gallons per month; and the absorption of this into the English liquid milk market will require the highest skill on the part of both the boards. I hope that the Scottish Board will proceed with the examination of the problem forthwith, and that the promoters of the English scheme will also proceed with the examination of this problem, because, when and if the public inquiry, to which I shall refer in a moment, is completed, little enough time will be left for that scheme to come into operation, even supposing that all goes smoothly, if grave injury to the liquid milk market in the autumn is to be averted.
As it is a Great Britain scheme that we are placing before the House, perhaps I may be allowed for a moment to refer
to affairs with which I have no direct concern, namely, affairs North of the Border, which are more specifically the care of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Under-Secretary of State, who is here to deal if necessary with any specifically Scottish questions. Certain Scottish points have been considered in the framing of this Great Britain scheme. It has been arranged that the board under the Pig Marketing Scheme is to have an office in Scotland, and thereby it will be brought, as far as Scottish affairs are concerned, under Scots jurisdiction. The publication of notices and so on will be in the Scottish newspaper, the "Scotsman," as well as in the London "Times"; provision for the inclusion of technical officers, such as a Scottish chartered accountant among those eligible to audit the accounts, will also be made; and, more particularly, the arbitrations to be held in Scotland will be conducted according to Scots law which, in these matters as in many others, differs from the law of England. As far as the Bacon Marketing Scheme is concerned, these points are also safeguarded. On the Bacon Board the Scottish representation has been increased from one to two members, and specific provision has been made for Scottish representation on the committees.
Turning to the scheme itself, "it was brought into existence after the inquiry of the Lane Pox Commission. It was set up, as the House will remember, by my right hon. Friend who is now Home Secretary, and by the right hon. Gentleman who is unfortunately no longer officially with us, but who was then Secretary of State for Scotland—the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). It was brought into existence to deal with a situation in which the average value of the pig meat consumed in this country was £83,000,000 a year, while the value of the imports was about £59,000,000. It was thought to be not unreasonable that a somewhat larger proportion of this enormous total should be produced in this country, which is in no way unsuitable for the production of bacon and pigs. We do at present produce these to such an extent that the annual value of pigs sold off farms in Great Britain is £22,500,000, so that it is a market which is already of importance to our country; but, of the
vast total of 1,000,000 tons of pig meat consumed in these Islands, two-thirds is imported at the present date. I do not think it will be denied on any line of argument that a plan to produce a larger proportion of this processed animal food at home might very reasonably be undertaken in this country. But that was not the position with which we were faced when the Lane Fox Commission was set up. We were faced with a position in which, as the Commission itself reported, there were indications that even those producers in Great Britain who had pursued a steady production policy in good times and bad for a number of years were beginning to lose heart. We were not really in a position in which we desired to expand; we were in a position where it was essential, if we desired to maintain even those agricultural producers that we had in active operation, that we should take some steps to deal with an admittedly very difficult and, indeed, a critical situation.
The Commission reported, among other things, upon the weaknesses of the bacon industry in this country. I do not need to detail them to the House; they are known to many of us; but I think it is fair to say that the Commission pointed out that it would be unfair to assume, from these weaknesses, that tie industry was inefficient. They pointed out that it was merely an absence of organisation that had brought about and maintained these conditions; but they also pointed out that the prices of bacon pigs had dropped from 60 per cent. above pre-War in 1929 to 13 per cent. below pre-War at the time of the Commission's investigations, and the Commission felt that it would be useless to initiate the development of the home bacon industry unless the violent competition from abroad was regulated.
We bring forward these proposals first of all under an Act which was placed on the Statute Book under a previous Administration, in which Dr. Addison was Minister of Agriculture, and in pursuance of proposals specifically recommended by a Commission jointly appointed by a Conservative and a Liberal Minister, whom one might describe in the political jargon of the day as a Samuelite Minister. Therefore, no party question of any kind arises in the consideration of these proposals. They
are to be considered as arising out of an agricultural policy which has been sanctioned, and indeed pressed forward, by representatives of all the great parties at present in the House. The Commission's report was to try to introduce stability, and the machinery for carrying the plan into effect was the machinery which we commend to the House to-day, a pig marketing board and a bacon marketing board. The powers are provided under the Marketing Act, 1931, and the regulation of supplies, which they said was in their view an essential part of the proposal, will be provided under the Marketing Act of 1933.
Draft schemes were prepared by the Lane Fox Commission. They were brought before the industry for the consideration of bacon producers and curers, and it was open to the producers to submit the schemes to the Minister, as they stood, or with alterations. They were, in fact submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself substantially in the form prepared by the Commission. The pig scheme was submitted on behalf of the National Farmers' Union of England and the National Farmers' Union for Scotland, and the bacon scheme by the bacon section of the Food Manufacturers' Federation. Notice of the schemes had to be published in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Then a public inquiry had to be held into the objections that were made. The inquiry lasted for eight days and each objector had a full and patient hearing. The scheme as a whole is to be presented to each House of Parliament, so that Parliament retains full control.
I will now say a word or two upon the actual provisions of the scheme. Pigs for pork are outside the scope of the scheme. Producers who desire to sell pigs to curers must be registered with the Board. No producer who is not so registered will be allowed to sell pigs for bacon. The Board will have power to regulate the sales of pigs of registered producers, including the determination of prices, and to prescribe the terms and form of the contract upon which the producer shall sell his pigs to the curers. The operation hinges on contract, and any sanctions that are imposed under this are not imposed by any sort of criminal procedure but by the old and
well known procedure of the enforcement of the terms of a contract. The bacon scheme exempts sales by small producers curing less than 40 cwts. of bacon in a consecutive period of two months. Therefore the fears expressed by some that this might interfere with the power, let us say, of a shepherd or a cottager, to keep a pig for his own consumption and kill and cure it or, having killed and cured it, to sell home-cured ham or bacon to his neighbours or friends, are groundless. The scheme provides for a levy for the purpose of financing the Board. The maximum levy under the pig scheme is Is. 6d. per pig, plus a registration fee of 2s. 6d., and, under the bacon scheme, 6d. per cwt. I do not think that these are excessive sums which will lead to any hardship upon the producer. The further proposals which I think should be examined are those relating to procedure, for procedure is the thing with which I am most concerned at the moment.
If we get the consent of the House we are about to submit these schemes for approval by the industry. That is a matter which involves considerable difficulty and hazard. All of us have been subject to the process of ballot, and we know how difficult it is, first of all, to convince anyone that any ballot is actually taking place, and, secondly, to convince them that we and not others are the proper persons who should be returned as the result of that ballot. Many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended in elections directly by Members of the House on propaganda for this purpose. I tremble to think how many millions are expended by organisations which are specially interested, such as the newspaper Press of the country. If the schemes are approved by Parliament, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I must formally make an order approving them in the terms of these drafts, and fixing a. date upon which they are to come into-force, but they will not immediately come into full operation. The principal' powers of the Board will remain in-abeyance during the suspensory period, which will last for about two months and will allow time for registration and for a poll to be taken on the question; whether the scheme shall remain in force. Unless the results of the poll show that two-thirds of the registered producers
voting are in favour of the continuance of the scheme, it will lapse, so that the final decision whether the schemes are to come into actual being or not rests with the industry itself.
I hope that Members in all parts of the House who are interested in agricultural marketing will take the opportunity of speaking in their constituencies and bringing to the notice of the agricultural community the fact that the schemes are in existence, and that on the decision of the producers will rest the life or death of the scheme. The only thing that I fear is that those whose business life is concerned with the success or failure of the schemes may be so taken up with the difficult and delicate business of making a living that they may not have time either to read any of the literature or even take the trouble to fill up the form that will be sent to them, and that, consequently, the necessary two-thirds majority may not be secured. I am certain that, if we could get the producers into a single hall and take a show of hands, we should have their sanction but, considering that they are scattered throughout Great Britain, that they are all busy men who are not actively engaged in the reading of literature or the canvassing of the importance or otherwise of the scheme, I beg the co-operation of the House as a whole in ensuring that people understand that a decision has to be taken. Interim boards are set up to administer affairs during those two months. They are, of course, nominated by the Minister and they will have very heavy tasks in front of them. It is our desire to appoint persons possessing some commercial and financial experience, as I think their advice and assistance will be of great value to the boards and I hope that their membership will be continued after the board itself has come into operation.
They will be financed by short-term loans from the Agricultural Marketing Fund. If the polls are favourable, the loans will be repaid by the industry itself. If they are unfavourable, only the unexpended portion of the loans will be repayable. There are adequate safeguards against abuse of the powers given by the scheme. The safeguards are provided in the 1931 Act. Any producer of a regulated product who is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Marketing Board
has a right to refer his grievance to arbitration and, to protect the interests of consumers, a Consumers Committee will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.
These are briefly the proposals which I commend now to the House. They are of great interest and they are of considerable technicality. We are asking the House to decide to-day whether these schemes are suitable for submission to the industry. I hold that they are, and I would ask those who have devoted many years of their life to the popularising of the conception of agricultural marketing to realise that here and now the opportunity comes of putting into effect the proposals which for so long we have discussed. It is no small thing that we are discussing. It is a great industry which has been neglected in the past and which holds great possibilities of development. On these schemes and on the polls taken under them the whole future of the industry depends, and if the schemes, having been passed by the House, are rejected by the industry a chaotic situation will supervene. I hope there will be no opposition to them, and that we shall send them forward to the industry with the approval of an enthusiastic House of Commons behind them.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to add my appeal for a unanimous verdict in favour of the scheme. Certainly it is not our intention to offer any opposition to it, although one or two observations may be made with a view to discovering possible improvements. I should like to ask first why the draft proposals are printed in this type. I am satisfied that, if the average small producer of pigs, not too well acquainted with legal literary matter, sits down to read, assimilate and try to understand the contents of either the Pig or the Bacon Order, there will be a restriction of production while he is trying to read this document when he ought to be feeding his pigs. May I suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should call the attention of whoever may be responsible for the printing, to the printing of these draft schemes? I see no reason why decent print should not be made available not only to right hon. and hon. Members of this House, but to those who are to be part and parcel of any scheme
under the Act. We agree with the fundamental principles both of the pig and bacon schemes. One is bound, however, to appreciate that with regard to the Act of 1931, and the Bill of 1933, there is. now a slight difference. Whereas marketing schemes were not dependent upon the regulation of imports, the Bill of 1933 permits, even for schemes under the 1931 Act, a regulation of the imports of a commodity. It also permits a board, when it commences to function, to determine the quantity and variety of a commodity which may be produced in this country.
It might have been a distinct improvement in this scheme if there could have been an over-riding board, apart from the board referred to in the scheme, jointly representing producers and consumers. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has intimated, with regard to the milk scheme, that such an over-riding board will be appointed. If such a board had been appointed in this case, it might have smoothed out many of the difficulties which may occur. If we are to carry the great mass of consumers with us along these co-operative lines, it is better, in the initial stages, that we should smooth out these difficulties so that, in the future, there may be a good deal of plain sailing. I think that might have been a distinct improvement both in the pig and in the bacon scheme. The board consists wholly of producers, with the exception of the members appointed by the Minister. I am sure I express the opinion of the Minister when I say we hope there will be no such restriction of home production that there will be, consequentially, a rise in price and a diminution in the consumption of British bacon. We would rather see that the output should increase simultaneously with the regulation of imports, and that prices should be so reasonable, both to the producer and the consumer, that the expanding markets will be preserved for the producer of pigs in this country. Such an over-riding board as I have mentioned, representing equally producers and consumers, might have smoothed out all sorts of difficulties, and prevented a reaction which might, ultimately, be detrimental to the producers of pigs and bacon in this country.
One of the points I would like to put to the Minister is this: I notice that there are registered producers of pigs, and non-
registered producers of pigs. This is a rather technical point, and I do not know whether the Minister can give me a reply. I can sympathise with him if he tries to do it. May I invite his officials to listen for a moment? If, when the ballot paper is received by the small producer of three, four or five pigs in a rural area, he replies to both questions in the negative he is not a registered producer. He is denied the right to sell any one, two or three of his four or five pigs to the board, or for curing purposes. He cannot do that unless he is a registered producer. Now in my own area, which is an industrial one, the general situation is that a man produces four or five pigs. He may kill one for bacon, sell one locally to the co-operative butcher, and he may have one killed to sell in email portions. To him this will not make any difference. But, under the terms of this Bill and scheme, I see a vague possibility that the person in a rural area, where pork butchers are few, may find himself with three or four pigs, because he has not the power to sell to the board or for bacon purposes.
Therein lies the success or failure of the scheme. I want to see as many votes cast in the affirmative, both for the pig and the bacon scheme, as possible, but there is just another point with regard to the small producer. Some person, resident for instance in Westmorland in a purely rural area—I am putting this almost solely for the edification of the Minister of Transport—may answer both questions in the affirmative and become a registered producer of pigs. He may also, however, be a breeder of pigs, and he may want to dispose of a litter of half-a-dozen. Will the registered producer have the power to Bell store pigs? That seems to me a problem, to which I cannot discover the solution in the pig scheme. It may be fully catered for, but I have not seen the answer to that question.
One other point with regard to the periodic determination of the quantity of pigs which may be produced by any registered producer over a given period. According to the scheme, the number of pigs any registered producer can produce in a given period will be determined upon the basis of some past output on that man's farm, allotment, or whatever it may be. This is the point I want to submit on the Floor of this House. The
Co-operative Wholesale Society have endeavoured to secure the requisite quantity of pigs for curing purposes to supply their customers. They have failed to secure that quantity, and they have had to establish factories in Denmark, not for trading competition in the ordinary sense, but merely to provide adequate quantities of bacon for their own members in this country. Under the terms of the Marketing Bill, imports from abroad can be regulated and reduced. That may render the co-operative wholesale factories more or less derelict, or partially so. If we are to increase output in this country we may find—although existing bacon factories are not working to capacity—that on the lines of the Lane Fox Commission Report the Wholesale Co-operative Society, having successfully invested money for the benefit of its customers in this country, may be seriously hampered. That society ought to be allotted a certain output, consistent with our imports from Denmark. If they care to transfer, and erect new curing factories in this country, they should be permitted some allocation of output. If the scheme succeeds in diminishing imports, and increasing output in this country, the Wholesale Co-operative Society should not be ignored, and they should have reasonable treatment. The Lane Fox Commission makes the following statement:
We think that consideration should be given to curers who, in the interests of both pig producers and the bacon industry at home, are prepared to transfer factory accommodation from foreign countries to the United Kingdom, and especially to those who are also in a position to sell the bacon they produce direct to the consumer.
That can only refer to the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and I think the promoters of the scheme might do well, when determining from time to time the permitted output to any factory, to bear in mind the output and the services rendered by the Co-operative Wholesale Society both at home and in curing in Denmark for home consumption. Having made these observations, I want to say that it is not our intention to oppose this scheme. We are indeed wholehearted supporters of the scheme, with perhaps slight modifications and improvements where improvements can be made. We shall be very happy if, at the end of the
right hon. and gallant Gentleman's period of office, he has created such a desire for co-operation, and elimination of waste, as will restore the prosperity in any or all the sections of the agricultural industry. If he succeeds in doing that through these co-operative schemes we shall be the first to congratulate him, instead of condemning him for initiating these schemes.

7.13 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: May I thank my hon. Friend for his very courteous speech and, in particular, for the affirmative vote he is going to give to this scheme. If I may reply to three questions he put I would say that if he looks on page 4 of the scheme he will see:
The board shall keep a register of producers, and every producer shall, on application to the board, be entitled to be registered therein.
Even though the small producer has answered "No" and "No," and later desires to be registered, he can at any time apply to the board, and the board is not able to refuse.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Unless he becomes a registered producer, he will be unable to sell to the board or the curer.

Major ELLIOT: Oh, yes, but at any moment he can become a registered producer. The hon. Member has made reference to the Minister of Transport's special interest in the question of store pigs. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) will be able to take advantage of Section 22, on page 4:
Any producer who desires to sell pigs neither to curers nor to the board shall be exempt from registration and from the operation of this scheme.
Anyone who desires to sell store pigs will not be prevented by the operation of this scheme, which affects fat stock and not store stock. As to the Wholesale Co-operative Society, the Lane Fox Commission say on page 57 of their Report:
The Pig Industry Development Board should be the instrument for preparing and supervising the plan of rationalisation.
I hope the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and other factories, will seriously consider transferring part of their output to this country. I hope very much also that the authorities will take a sympathetic view of any desire on their part to transfer skilled men as well as plant to this country whereby we can get the
bacon industry founded more firmly in this country.

7.15 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: I have pleasure in giving general support to the two schemes now before us, but I wish to say a few words about the present position. Although the Minister was correct when he said that all we had to decide to-day was whether these schemes were in a fit state to submit to the industry, actually this is our last word on the subject. If they are agreed to by the industry, they go forward and do not come back here at all. Therefore, it is right that we should now say what we have to say about them. Although those with whom I work thought it necessary to take the line we took with regard to the Agricultural Marketing Bill recently before the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and I in a lesser degree, made it clear that we thought that there was a very good case for proceeding with the better organisation of the pig and the bacon industry, and we mentioned two outstanding points. Hitherto, very much to the discredit of many of us connected with the industry of agriculture, we have signally failed to produce a really standardised British bacon of high quality. We get it sometimes, but we can never be sure of getting it steadily as is the case with other countries.
The main point with regard to pigs which differentiates them from any other agricultural commodity is the evil done in the industry by the upsets which take place every three or four years owing to what is called in the report of the Lane Fox Commission, the "pig price cycle." It is interesting to notice that they say that whereas in the seven years which ended in May of last year there was a variation of supplies in beef, mutton and lamb of only 2½ per cent., yet, owing to the operation of the pig price cycle, there was in that period a range of variation of 30 per cent. with regard to supplies of pigs. That is not good for anybody. It does the producer no good. He invariably starts breeding pigs when the feeding stuffs prices are low and the price of pigs is high, only to find that by the time the pigs are ready for the market, the feeding stuffs prices are much higher and the price of pigs has fallen away almost to nothing. It ought to be possible to get that matter into very much
better order to the great advantage of the producer without doing the consumer any harm. That is one of the main things which must be kept in mind by those who have to put forward these schemes. It is right that we should begin with the question of the bacon factory upon which naturally follows the control and regulation with regard to the pig. It is only by putting supplies through a factory which is part of a scheme that you can be sure of sticking to the pig quota allotted to pig breeders and feeders. We who are in favour of this very great advance also realise that it is a great experiment.
I take up the point which the Minister made that we should do all we possibly can to see to it that the matter is explained, that the people who are entitled and expected to take part in the voting shall do so, and that they shall know all about what they are voting for. Nine-teen-twentieths of these schemes are, inevitably, because of their very nature, in purely formal, legal wording describing boards, voting, and vacancies, and, to some extent, pains and penalties. They cannot get a real picture of the organisation which it is intended to set up. I do not complain in the least, but here is a document in formal language setting up formalities and machinery, and not one person in a thousand can make head or tail of what is intended by looking through the scheme. One has to refer to the Report of the Lane Fox Commission in order to understand the position. The ordinary man will not do that. It is too much of a mouthful for him. It will be difficult even for anyone who is really accustomed to read these things to understand what is really intended. I make the suggestion to the Minister—it cannot be acted upon this time, because it is too late—that on other occasions when schemes of this kind, similarly formal in their framing and wording, come forward, he should consider whether, in addition to the speech he makes—he has placed the matter so fully and clearly before us this afternoon—he cannot present to the House a paper which, in a less compass than sending out the OFFICIAL REPORT of his speech will put before the industry the real inwardness of the scheme.
The present scheme is being canvassed by those concerned. The agricultural committees are doing their best
by distributing a leaflet describing what is intended. That is all to the good, but if something could be put before the industry concerned, not merely on the authority even of that important body, the National Farmers' Union, but on the greater authority of the Minister of Agriculture, and we could have copies of it to send to our constituents who are interested in the matter, it would help to popularise the schemes and in that way contribute to their success. Some of my constituents who are interested have raised this point. They say, looking at the draft of the marketing of bacon scheme, "It looks to us as though it is intended to set up a considerable trust." It is clear that the people who are to propose the board under the marketing of bacon scheme are the representatives of the present bacon factories. They are to be brought together, and means are to be taken to see that they play fair with one another; but in the future they will be the buyers and the sellers of bacon. With certain exceptions they will be the buyers, the standardisers and the advertisers of bacon in this country. They say that that is no doubt inevitable, and ask, "What procedure is to be followed to see that they do not develop any of the defects or abuses of a trust, namely, buying too cheap and selling too dear? They will have very great powers." I think I know what the answer to that really is. One can find the answer in the report of the Commission. It is that the price of pigs will be based upon a certain formula. It will be based on the price of foodstuffs with regard to the main part of it, and with regard to the other part which will be over and above that formula, there will be negotiations between the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pig Marketing Board, with the Pig Industrial Development Board ready to settle the differences between the two and to see fair play. I believe that that is the answer, although all we know about the Pig Industrial Development Board is that it has not yet been set up.
The scheme is put before us as a pig marketing scheme. It is not a pig marketing scheme; it is a bacon-pig marketing scheme. As was pointed out by Sir William Haldane in his rather moderate and weighty reservations to the report of the Lane Fox Commission,
there are dangers in regulating the supply in the organisation of bacon pigs and leaving the question of the pork-pig and the pork supply entirely unregulated. I hope that the obvious risk may not really materialise. Obviously, it is a thing which will have to be watched very carefully, and I am glad that it is in the hands of a Minister so capable of watching and taking the necessary action, if action is shown to be necessary, as the Minister of whom I am at present speaking.

7.28 p.m.

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward these Orders, and also thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for the kind way in which he has received the proposals presented by the Minister. We rejoice that in agriculture there is a remedy for unemployment and an opportunity of getting men back to the land. As the representative of an agricultural division, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these Orders, and I trust that in the near future we shall have a Milk Board.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved,
That the scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for regulating the marketing of pigs, a draft of which was presented to the House on the 22nd day of June, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for regulating the marketing of bacon, a draft of which was presented to the House on the 22nd day of June, 1933, be approved."—[Major Elliot.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Read a Second time, and committed.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 144.
The Clause which I desire to leave out empowers the Essex County Council to prohibit anyone from indulging in skywriting unless they are licensed. I am actuated by many reasons in desiring to
leave out the Clause. First of all, I think there is an undue extension of municipal activity in this country, and that every addition to their powers of administration ultimately involves increased expenditure. I have on many occasions in this House protested against the enormous increase of municipal expenditure, a very large part of which falls on the National Exchequer. Therefore, apart from anything else, on the ground of economy I object to every new power which a municipality may be seeking at the present time.
Quite apart from that broad ground of principle, it seems to me undesirable that in the early days of an interesting new scientific development there should be hampering restrictions imposed by people who are not very experienced. The purpose of those who advocate this control in the Bill is the preservation of natural beauty. They do not want great and beautiful mountains like Snowdon to be defaced. If the county council of Carnarvon were coming forward I could understand that, but Essex is not exactly the county that I would have selected for an experiment on the ground that some natural beauty might be disfigured by illumination of the sky. I am sorry if I offend the patriotic susceptibilities of the able and distinguished hon. Members who represent that rather flat county.
It is interesting to note that in the last Session of Parliament there was a Select Committee, a very responsible and representative Select Committee, appointed, including a number of hon. and right hon. Members of this House, who take a strong view on the desirability—and I agree with them—of preserving the natural beauty of one of the most beautiful countries in the world, our own. They heard many witnesses and presented a Report which, I think, was unanimous. There was no dissent I think.

Mr. MANDER: One dissentient.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not know that there was one dissentient. A very interesting point in the Report is found on page 12, paragraph 24:
Those who have never seen sky-writing seem, in the main, to be opposed to it, but many after viewing the actual searchlight in operation are not offended by it.
In other words, opposition comes from those entirely unfamiliar with the subject. We are not unacquainted with that sort of opposition. It is the common conservatism of all of us, irrespective of politics. We all object to that which is novel. The Committee did not recommend, incidentally, that the Essex County Council should insert a Clause in their Bill to deal with sky-writing. They came to the conclusion in respect of smoke-writing that there was no call either for the prohibition or the control of that form of enterprise, and they did not recommend any change in the existing law. With regard to sky-writing, which I would call the projection of light on the clouds, they contemplated the possibility of legislation, but they had some doubts whether it should be by means of national control or local control. I think I am fair in summarising the report of the Committee by saying that, in any event, they did not consider there was any call or any desirability for immediate legislation, and that the right course to adopt was to endeavour to have some kind of voluntary control.
That. recommendation, which was the cardinal recommendation in the report of the Committee, has been given effect to. I have in my hand a list of the members of the Sky-writing Conference, which includes all the bodies likely to be concerned—the various national organisations of advertisers, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, people actually engaged in sky-writing, the following Government or semi-Governmental Departments, the Board of Trade, Trinity House, whose interests are the lighthouse service, the Air Ministry, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, who perfor in for Scotland the functions performed for England and Wales by Trinity House, and the representative bodies who can speak for the interests of the Scottish commercial community. Every interest that is likely to he concerned from the broad national point of view is represented on this Skywriting Conference, and I am told that they have drawn up quite appropriate rules, which means that there can be no offence to anybody. In other words, you have in operation a satisfactory system of control.
It is interesting to note that the Home Office—I trust their view is now what
it was some months ago—communicated to the Lords Committee dealing with this matter an expression of opinion that this Clause, which was numbered 137 and is now numbered 144, should be deleted from the Bill. I do not know, and I have no right to inquire, why that advice was not acted upon. It may be that the significance of it was not fully appreciated. If there is to be legislation the initiative ought to come in a national form, and from the Government of the day. I am entirely opposed to great national decisions—ultimately it may be a great national decision although it is only a small thing now—being taken by what I would call a chance Clause in an individual Corporation Bill, which none of us sees in the ordinary way unless some outside person who happens to be interested draws our specific attention to it.
Once a Clause of this kind has gone through in one Session it means that, unconsciously, we have given what is regarded as our deliberate assent to it. and in subsequent Sessions it becomes the duty of Committees upstairs automatically to approve of that particular Clause in the Bills of county councils—and county borough councils, and, later, someone comes along in connection with some general public health Bill and says:"Many local authorities have obtained this Clause. Let us make it national. "That is an unsatisfactory way of taking a vital decision on policy. Therefore, when an entirely new principle is introduced in a municipal Bill which comes before Parliament asking for statutory powers, the principle ought to be effectively debated in this House, so that we may come to a considered decision after discussing the matter in all its bearings, keeping in mind the fact that, although we may be discussing only an individual Clause, we are deciding something which may ultimately have nation-wide scope. For these reasons I move the instruction. I am glad that we have the presence of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland) who was the Chairman of the Select Committee, and I hope that he will be in a position to give us his guidance in the course of the Debate.

7.39 p.m.

Mr, M. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so from a point of view somewhat different from that taken by my hon. Friend. I agree with him in his first point in regard to the general undesirability of the extension of the powers of local authorities which invariably, as he said, means increased expenditure. I say this in no sense of hostility to the Essex County Council. Unlike my hon. Friend who moved the Instruction, I have a great affection and admiration for Essex. It is a beautiful county, returning many distinguished Members to this House, and it must have, I am convinced, an able county council, because they have managed to persuade my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson), against what I am certain is his better judgment, to oppose this Instruction.
I view with horror—a horror which, I think, is shared by a considerable number of hon. Members—the growing tendency of this House, and particularly of this Parliament, to indulge in the nefarious practice of local option, a practice to which the majority of the House are opposed. I am sorry that hon. Members allow themselves, I do not know why, to be misled by those who put forward seductive ideas like the safeguarding of amenities, into supporting what is a thoroughly bad principle and which, if they realised what they were doing, they would oppose. I, like some of the hon. Members who are supporting this Measure, desire to safeguard, just as much as they do, the amenities of the countryside, but I support this Instruction because I am convinced that the last people in the world to safeguard those amenities are the county councils. If there are any bodies more than others which have in the past perpetrated vandalisms on the countryside and have more than any others when the question is put before them, taken a commercial rather than an amenity point of view, it is the local authorities of this country. We have only to look at the housing schemes all over the country to get a clear proof of that. It is a mystery to me why societies which exist for the preservation of various amenities of the countryside should indulge in the support of Measures of this sort.
It has been suggested that the supporters of this Instruction are supporters of sky-writing. I am not. I dislike sky-
writing as I dislike all modern scientific inventions. I believe the time is far distant when we shall forbid all mechanical devices without distinction, and therefore I wish to see scientific inventions put under proper control, but I am certain not only that this Bill as now drafted will not put them under proper control, but that it will be the start of a scheme which will prevent them from ever being put under proper control. If you are to control this new development of sky-writing, you require people who know something about it, and with every respect for the Essex County Council, I am perfectly certain that the vast bulk of them cannot be numbered in that class. I forbear to go into the difficulties of what particular portions of the sky belong to Essex and its boundaries, whether it is possible to project from some neighbouring counties writing on the Essex sky, or whether, on the other hand, it will be possible to project from Essex writing on somebody else's sky. These are interesting points which I have no doubt the Committee upstairs, in the event of this Instruction not being carried, will have to discuss and decide.
I am convinced that this important scientific development should be properly controlled on a national basis. We should seek in this as in other matters to ensure that this development should be controlled, if necessary, by people thoroughly competent to take all the facts into consideration. There are those who will say: "We agree with that view, but we know that that takes time. We are frightened by this development, therefore we want something to be done at once, and here is a Measure designed to give us control in one part of England." But my hon. Friend has pointed out the supreme danger of that course. If Parliament grants this power now it will mean that in the next two or three years other county councils, equally unwise, will demand similar provision in their Bills, and what I believe to be the dangerous and thoroughly unsatisfactory system of local option which is pervading too many spheres of life to-day, will be extended. I hope hon. Members will pay the greatest attention to what the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) may say, because he knows more about this subject than anyone in
the House. I hope also that the Under-Secretary of State is going to support the original suggestion of his own Department, that the Clause should not stand part of the Bill, and that we shall listen with rapt attention to his advice which, on this occasion, will be admirable. I hope that hon. Members who represent Essex, including my hon. Friend now on the Government Front Bench, will be so overcome by the winning words of my hon. Friend that they will be compelled to withdraw their opposition to this Instruction, and on this matter support the Government in the knowledge that they are right.

7.46 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) that I am not asking the House to oppose this Instruction against my better judgment. Far from it. Although I have served in the Home Office, on this occasion I differ from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Mr. H. Williams) said that he regarded the formation of a voluntary body as the cardinal recommendation of the Select Committee. I speak subject to anything which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) may say, but I did not read the report in that way. I read it as implying that they recommended that legislation should be passed and that in the interval it was desirable that a voluntary body should be formed, from which some experience might be gained by the Home Office to enable them to frame their legislation better in the future. I am reinforced in that argument by reading the terms of the recommendation which the Home Office sent to the House of Lords Committee which dealt with the Bill, because in the last paragraph. it says:
The Secretary of State takes the view that the question of legislation on the subject, particularly as in this case legislation of a purely local character, should be deferred until experience has been gained of the effectiveness of the control achieved by the rules in question, and he recommends that the Clause should be struck out.
That obviously implies that a voluntary body is to be formed first and that legislation is to follow. I want to draw the attention of the House to a point which has not been mentioned by either of the
two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Instruction. We all agree, or at any rate the majority of the House agrees, that it is bad to have too much interference with the private liberty and activities of the subject. The hon. Member for Aylesbury holds strong views on that subject; but it is equally bad for the State not to interfere with activities which may subsequently become a public nuisance and which may create vested interests. We have had examples of allowing activities to take place and vested interests to be created, which subsequently have had to be compensated, because of our failure to pass legislation at the proper time.
May I cite two instances, both as far as I remember and certainly one of them affecting the Home Office? There was the question of the regulation of advertisements which we dealt with in 1907 and again in 1925. In that case we had to give compensation to certain owners of advertisements by allowing their advertisements to remain in position for a certain number of years without interference, because we had not taken action sufficiently early. In the Petroleum Act of 1928 we again not only had to make provision so that certain existing stations should not be interfered with structurally, but we had actually to insert a Clause giving compensation to certain stations which the county council considered it might be necessary to remove. There again it was a case of this House not acting soon enough, and allowing vested interests to be created which subsequently became a nuisance to the countryside.
At the present moment there are no vested interests in the skies except what we all hope individually to obtain in the future, and, therefore, it seems to me that this is a suitable opportunity for legislation before these vested interests, which the hon. Member for South Croydon envisages, can arise, which may have to be compensated in the future. The hon. Member referred to the creation of a "voluntary body and said that surely it was sufficiently representative of all interests concerned. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is the case that the voluntary body contains no representatives of local authorities and no representatives of the various societies which are deeply interested in preserving
the amenities and beauties of the countryside. It does not represent those who are interested in preserving the countryside but those who are interested in advertising; it is therefore one-sided. In the second place the voluntary body has no power. If any independent advertiser chooses to operate on his own initiative they have no power to prevent him; they cannot penalise him. He has not to get a licence from them. They cannot do anything. All they can do is to hope that they will be able to persuade the various advertising interests concerned to follow the line they recommend. But they have no power to prevent anyone doing something contrary to their wishes and creating a vested interest which it may be necessary to compensate subsequently.
I should like to assure the hon. Member for South Croydon that although Essex is near London it contains some of the most beautiful rural scenery in England. Neither is it a flat county; there are parts of it which are extremely hilly. The fact that it contains beautiful rural scenery and that it is very near London naturally makes it more apprehensive of danger arising from sky advertisements than would be the case in a county in the West of England. It is because of its position so near to London—in its northern part it is only 40 miles from London, but it contains villages which are 10 and 15 miles from a railway station— that they want to take powers to be able to control what may subsequently become a public nuisance. The county council will be quite prepared to modify the Clause so that it should be subject to any recommendation made by the Home Office, but I ask hon. Members to realise that it may be two or three years before the Home Office, with the press of Government legislation now before us in this Parliament, will be able to legislate on this matter. In that interval vested interests may arise and nuisances may be created, and nobody will have any power to deal with them at all. When such legislation is subsequently brought in you will have my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State apologising for having to introduce a Clause compensating vested interests which have been created.
May I draw the attention of the House to one other point? This is a large document, as the House will observe. It contains over 200 Clauses. It is an omnibus
Bill, giving general powers to the county council and bringing certain of their powers up to date. The particular Clause to which objection is taken is only one amongst 200. Some of us to-day had the opportunity, in another part of London, of listening to a Debate on another subject, and the most striking statement in that Debate, and one which I think greatly influenced the result, was the argument put before every one there that if you set up a committee to do a particular thing you should not attempt to instruct that committee as to how it should do its work. In this House we have by our procedure a method by which we send Bills upstairs to a Select Committee, which examines them in detail. If that is the case the committee we have established is quite competent to hear any evidence which the county council or its opponents may desire to bring for and against this Clause, and surely we are wrong in attempting to establish the precedent that we should instruct one of our own committees as to what they should do before they have heard evidence on one particular Clause in a Bill of some 200 Clauses. Therefore, I ask the House to think carefully, despite what my hon. Friend on the Front Bench may say, before they accept this Instruction, and on the grounds I have mentioned, and also on the general ground of maintaining our procedure, to let the Committee upstairs decide this matter for itself. I hope the House will not accept the Instruction.

7.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I must confess that I cannot follow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) that we should allow a Committee upstairs to investigate this subject anew because the House of Commons has set up a Committee to investigate. The Committee took a great deal of time, called all sorts of evidence in favour and against, and came to a definite conclusion. It was not that any county council should legislate, it was that we should wait a certain time; that we should wait for national legislation. That is not what the Bill attempts to do.
I have sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member in defending the beauties of Essex, but I cannot help reminding hon. Members that sky-writing takes place chiefly at night and, consequently,
you cannot see the beauties of Essex. A point which was brought out before the Committee was that it does not pay to sky-write anywhere, except in densely populated urban districts. Consequently anybody who starts sky-writing in beautiful country scenery is bound to go bankrupt very quickly. The thing looks after itself. When we considered the question of sky-writing and thought that we were going to be enthusiastic against it we found, when we came to investigate the matter, that on a dark drab night with low drifting clouds sky-writing was not as bad as it was painted.
The question of local option has been dealt with by my hon. Friend, but since we investigated it, I do not think that one single Member of the House has seen sky-writing at all. I should like to ask the Minister, when he replies, to say whether the Air Ministry had anything to do with inspiring the Essex County Council to put this Clause in their Bill; because sky-writing has practically been killed by the Air Ministry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hurrah !"] Some people say "Hurrah!" but you have to remember that this little industry, which has been starved, sold about 90 per cent. of its apparatus abroad and employed men every day. Now, due to the Air Ministry, who said that it was a danger to navigation, that industry has gone bankrupt. But the Air Ministry, when it came before the Committee, never said that skywriting was a danger to navigation at all. They stopped the development of the company by saying that it was a danger to navigation, but they had not the temerity to say this to us, because we might have answered. The Air Ministry are going right outside their province in giving about industrial activities advice which they cannot substantiate and which they have not the moral courage to put up before a Committee appointed to investigate the subject.
One point I have not heard discussed and which should be spoken about is the question of air defence. It came up in the Committee, and nobody has spoken about it to-night. We are all afraid of the menace of air attack and air bombing at night, and so far no defence has been brought up to counter it. The only thing we have is anti-aircraft guns and searchlights. Sky-writing develops the searchlight. I believe that a really effi-
cient type of searchlight and anti-aircraft gun could deal with bombing at night; nothing else can. I think it is a thousand pities, before this industry has advanced to any noticeable extent at all, to handicap what might be a very powerful potential weapon of defence. We saw in the first sky-writing at night a type of searchlight that had never been seen before, that had not been introduced by the Navy, the Army or anybody else—a new invention. The Air Ministry has stifled this, and we are determined to-night, if we do not stop this particular Clause, to introduce legislation at a later date on what is a matter of some national importance.

8.4 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: References have been made to the Select Committee and to the recommendations made by the Select Committee, and also to myself as its' Chairman. I think, therefore, that the House might wish to know what exactly those recommendations were. They do not correspoind precisely with the discription given of them either by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) or by my hon. Friend who opposed the proposed Instruction. The Select Committee went very carefully indeed into the question. It held, I think, 15 sittings, and examined a very large number of people. We examined the question in all its aspects, and as a result we made quite definite recommendations. There are two which, with the permission of the House, I will read, because those are the two which are material to the present case. The first is Section 38 of the Report:
Area."
For the reasons which have been already given your Committee recommend that legislation should be introduced on the following lines. In rural areas night skywriting should be prohibited for all private purposes, a rural area being defined as any rural district or any borough or urban district with a population of less than 20,000. This prohibition should be subject to the proviso that the local authority of a prohibited area may by a resolution of its council sanction the use of night sky-writing upon such special occasions as it may deem expedient. In urban areas night sky-writing should be freely permitted provided that the time and location of displays are suitable.
That was one recommendation. The other governs, so to speak, the time and
the suitability of the display. It is in Section 44, and again perhaps the House might like to hear it:
Your committee, therefore, recommend that the Home Secretary should, as soon as possible, convene a voluntary body representative of advertisers, advertising agents, firms engaged in sky projection and such other interests as he may think should be represented. This body should act in consultation with the central departments concerned, the associations of local authorities and the societies who are interested in advertising and the preservation of amenities. It should be able to exercise a reasonable control of both the matter used in sky advertising, the manner and place in which it is displayed and the number of machines operating at one time within a defined area. The success that has already attended voluntary censorship, by the advertisers themselves, of advertisements through existing media makes your committee the more Confident that the control which they suggest for sky-writing should be effective, and should at any rate be tried in the first instance. In addition your committee recommend that this voluntary body should operate for any or all of the purposes, for which your committee have recommended legislative provisions, until such time as the appropriate legislation in each case has been enacted.
Those are the two recommendations which we made. It will be seen that in the first place no general legislation has actually been passed with regard to rural areas, but of course the House will see quite clearly that what we had in mind was that it should be the exception rather than the rule that sky-writing should take place in what were predominantly rural areas—that is to say, actually rural districts or districts in which there were only small towns situated in the midst of rural scenery; but that, on the other hand, the power to exhibit displays on the sky should itself be the rule rather the exception in closely-populated urban areas. We thought that under the conditions that often prevail there, subject of course to the censorship of the body set up, people who had actually seen the displays would find them not unwelcome. I think I am stating quite fairly the opinion of the Committee and the reasons why they acted.
What has happened is that the legislation imposing these prohibitions in strictly rural districts and small urban districts with a small population has not been passed. On the other hand, the voluntary body which was recommended in the later stage, and which it was recommended should function pending
any general legislation being passed, has been set up. As far as I know, it has been acting to the general satisfaction. At least, of this I am quite sure—that there has never been any outrageous or objectionable use of sky-writing in the meantime from that day to this, or without question we should all have heard of it. From the day that the report was issued and from the time that the body was set up until to-day, there has been no instance to which public attention has been called of any sky-writing as affecting sensibilities of taste and appreciation of natural beauty.
I would only ask the House, looking at this question responsibly, what would be the natural inference that any sensible person would draw under these conditions? I think it would be that so long as the present state of affairs is going well, so long as the present body is working satisfactorily and no complaints are heard, we should be content that we have apparently settled, with tolerable success, a question that at one time caused a lot of apprehension and was very controversially debated. I think that the other inference that any person ought probably to draw is that, since the very limited legislation that was recommended has not been passed, every individual authority asking for legal power and taking action in doing so should be careful to follow the recommendations which were made by the Select Committee.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) says: "You should not beforehand try to tie the hands of a Committee," I might say in return: "What is the good of a Select Committee that goes into a particular question very carefully indeed if, without reason assigned, a particular body proceeds to take action at variance with its recommendations "? It is quite clear, and I submit that it may quite well be that, when recommendations have been made and not acted upon, then after the lapse of considerable time, if conditions have changed, no doubt it might be quite legitimate, proper and sensible to take some different kind of action from what was formerly recommended. This should not, however, be done when the events are so recent as these, and certainly not, I would suggest, by an individual authority when it is seeking powers and general legislation is not being passed.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Might I remind my right hon. Friend that it is more than a year since his Committee reported, and that no legislation from the Home Office is in prospect?

Sir A, STEEL-MAITLAND: That is quite true; the very fact that a year has passed since this body was set up pending legislation, and that it has been in action and no single complaint has been received at all, must, I think, show in the first place that the present state of affairs is tolerably satisfactory and that there has been no development within that year to warrant powers being asked for by a local authority different from what the Select Committee recommended. The fact is that what this local authority asks for is powers not only different but absolutely at variance with the recommendations of the Select Committee. What we suggested was prohibition in quite rural areas, with power to the local rural district council or urban district council to give a licence. We never contemplated the county as the licensing authority. Again, what we did think was that skywriting should be permitted in urban areas. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there are very large urbanised areas within the county of Essex, and therefore, so far as the county council take powers for prohibition of this kind, their action is quite distinctly at variance with and incompatible with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I say, therefore, that if a new precedent is to be established, especially one that runs quite counter to the recommendations of a committee which has so recently been set up, it should be established by some general legislation—if at all—and not by an Act of a particular authority, like the Bill which is being brought before the House to-night.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is it not the case that the Select Committee over which my right hon. Friend presided recommended that the body to which he referred should act in consultation with the societies who are interested in the preservation of amenities? Is that not the case, and has the consultation taken place?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not the information to answer my hon. and learned Friend. I have not myself heard of any complaints, and I understood that
the body was acting to the general satisfaction. I should rather have imagined that I should have heard indications from those societies if they had had any substantial grounds of complaint. Further than that I cannot give him information. I do not think as things are that there is any great danger. Sky-writing has not been such a success that its promoters are likely to be exhibiting signs all over the sky. I always thought that too much had been made of the possible danger and that this development—an extremely interesting one as an hon. Member opposite has pointed out—was not likely to meet with that success which, from some points of view other than the aesthetic point of view, might be wished for. I think, however, that when a question of this kind has been carefully gone into in the manner described, a single local authority ought not to act in a way which is at variance with the recommendations unless there is some urgent reason for doing so. I speak in this matter with a full sense of responsibility and with a great desire to protect both natural beauties and beauties which are of our own making. I would say to any hon. Friends of mine who are anxious to protect natural or architectural beauties, that one has to exercise a certain amount of judgment in these matters. If we take action on all and every occasion when questions of this kind arise, then perhaps when some object of real artistic value and importance is threatened, the influence which we can exercise to protect it may be less than it would otherwise be.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: I find myself, I regret to say, at variance with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) on this subject, and I have authority for giving to him and to the House the information which he was not able to supply. The bodies mainly concerned with the preservation of amenities and in particular, such bodies as have given long and distinguished service in connection with the problem of controlling advertising, have not been consulted and are not represented on this committee. They do not consider it, in the present situation as in any way satisfactory, nor do they regard it as the appropriate body to be appointed arising out of the Select Com-
mittee's recommendations. If the situation is no worse than it is at present that is only due to the fact that by a merciful dispensation of Providence, bankruptcy has come to our aid, at any rate temporarily. But that is no reason for not ensuring ourselves against being taken unawares. I am not going to argue at length the need for the preservation of amenities. None of us wants to see the country plastered all over with announcements such as "Buy Croydon's pole-axes and save money" or things of that sort. But I wish to point out to the House some reasons why Essex is particularly concerned in this matter.
In the first place, the fact that it is close to London and has suffered in the past more than almost any other district in the South of England from the devastation of its amenities makes it particularly anxious on this occasion. I speak not as representing an Essex constituency, but as one with some knowledge of the county. It is ludicrous to tell those of us who have some knowledge on this subject that it is always the local authority which is the cause of our troubles. I am not a particular friend to local authorities or their actions, but I see below me an hon. Member who is prominently connected with the London County Council, and I would remark that any person acquainted with Essex conditions who compares the municipal housing schemes carried out by the London County Council at Becontree and elsewhere, with the operations of the speculative builders, is left unmoved by the perpetual reiteration of the definite misstatement that local authorities cannot be trusted in this matter of the preservation of amenities.
Further, Essex is particularly concerned because taking the portion of it which is closest to London there are at least two districts which are officially urban districts and will continue to be so being over the 20,000 population mark but which are in fact definitely rural in character. Their rural character vitally affects the biggest open space which is available for East London—Epping Forest. I refer to Chingford and Woodford. It is important that the Essex County Council or some local authority should have power to ensure control over this form of advertising. Then the point is raised, why should it be a local authority? For a very intelligent reason. It is ludicrous to try to persuade us that
no legislation of this type should be in the hands of local authorities. All legislation of this kind is in the hands of local authorities. Whether it is town and country planning, or advertisement regulation, or public health or smoke abatement—all that kind of legislation rests on the basis of the local authority.
It is true that we have to take the rough with the smooth, and of course there are advantages in centralisation. It is true that if Essex does not control its smoke, its smoke will blow over surrounding districts; if East Ham does not control its smoke, that smoke will blow over Essex, and if Essex will not control sky-writing, but Suffolk wants to control it, there will be trouble on the border. The fact remains that in this country we have taken the view that the control of amenities should be in the hands of local authorities, and it is absurd to argue this as a great question of general principle. It has all been settled long ago. For years local authorities, whether for good or evil, have been encouraged to take more and more action in the control of the amenities of their neighbourhoods. The county council is the authority for that purpose and it is no use to take up time in arguing that it should be some totally different body. If anybody is to do it, it must be the county council, and somebody must do it.
I come now to a point regarding which I was entirely confused by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth. It seems odd that another Member should tell the right hon. Gentleman what he really meant by his own report, but I cannot square his account of what he meant, with what is said in the report, the text of which I have here. In passing, may I say that I do not consider the report of the Select Committee a good document. I think it a peculiarly unhappy document, but in it the Committee say in terms that legislation should be carried, and they also say in terms that pending legislation a certain type of voluntary body should be set up. That type of voluntary body has not been set up. It does not exist.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking) indicated dissent.

Mr. HOROBIN: That appears to surprise the Under-Secretary but it is not
the case that the type of voluntary body envisaged in the report has been set up. The body which has been set up contains no representation of bodies who are interested in amenities. According to my information none of those bodies, such as the Scapa Society, and the Society for the Preservation of Rural England, or societies other than those having trade interests or special interests in this matter, has been taken into consultation.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member has said that the constitution of the committee is not in conformity with the constitution suggested in the report of the Select Committee. I do not see wherein it differs from the recommendation. He says that the report suggested that there should be somebody on the committee concerned with amenities. Where does he find that in the report?

Mr. HOROBIN: I was taking it as read by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. HACKING: I do not think it is there. What they do say is:
Your Committee therefore recommend that the Home Secretary should as soon as possible convene a voluntary representative of advertisers, advertising agents, firms engaged in sky projection and such other interests as he may think should be represented.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Will the hon. Member please read the next sentence?

Mr. HACKING: It goes on to talk about those in consultation. The hon. Member talked about them being part of the body in control, and he said the constitution of this Committee was not in conformity with the suggestions made by the Select Committee, but I submit that the constitution of the Committee does conform with those suggestions.

Mr. HOROBIN: If I used the word "constitution," which is open to misconstruction, we will not argue over verbal words. The point of substance is that even the Select Committee appreciated the fact that it was necessary that any voluntary body, to command respct, should be in the closest touch and should act in consultation with the societies interested in amenities. That in fact has not happened. The point that I want to make, however, is that it cannot be considered a satisfactory body even in the interim, and, secondly, that even the re-
port only considered that as interim, and it has all along been recognised that general legislation is necessary. The point, therefore, is narrowed down to whether it is desirable to wait until some day when the Government may be in a position to introduce general legislation, or whether it is appropriate that a county council, which is anxious and prepared to take part in an omnibus Bill following the lines of the report, should do so. I cannot understand something in the report of the Select Committee, as I read their proposals, word for word, as to the type of provision that should be laid down in any such connection. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to draw some special distinction between a county council and a local authority. A county council is a local authority, and in this connection it is not only a local authority, but the local authority.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We made a distinction between rural areas—defined as rural districts and urban districts with a population of less than 20,000— and urban areas, and in urban areas we recommended complete freedom, provided the type of display was suitable. The power which the Essex County Council seeks is to be able completely to prohibit in urban areas as well as in rural areas, and therefore it is at variance with the recommendations of the committee.

Mr. HOROBIN: The point that I am trying to make is, that unless the right hon. Gentleman desires to add to his recommendations, he appears to suggest that the authority must be every separate rural district authority and urban district authority with under 20,000 population, but that is not the case. Those are not the appropriate local authorities doing that kind of work. The authority which is doing that kind of work is the county council, and the area over which the county council may or may not exercise that power is a matter of argument. I heartily applaud that it should be possible, as things stand, for the county council to exercise this power of advertisement control over a slightly larger area than the Select Committee would have given power to a local authority to control. My point is, that no one, even on the Select Committee, laid it down that nothing could be done until every separate rural distriect and every
separate urban district council decided to act, because that will never happen. It would reduce the thing to a complete farce. The local authority for advertisement regulation is the county council. The Essex County Council is trying to obtain these powers because there is no immediate prospect of this House laying down general legislation, and I submit that it is highly desirable, if this House cannot find time—and it has not shown any signs of finding time—to make general powers, that when, as here, we have an authority anxious to do what must be done, it should be encouraged to do it.
I would stress the importance of the point of avoiding claims for compensation. The curse of our efforts to preserve amenities has always been that when you come to do anything you discover that somebody has bought it, or inherited it, or has some other hold over it—all legitimate, private, proprietary rights which have to be bought out. Mercifully, the only right we have here has "gone broke." Let us take the powers which everybody admits must be taken sooner or later while they are "broke," and before somebody else comes along and says, "If you want to stop the sky being written all over with the name of somebody's beer, you must pay me £20,000 or £30,000."On these grounds, I urge upon the House to allow this Bill, as it has come from another place, to go to a Select Committee, where the claims for and against it can be discussed.

8.32 p.m.

Major LLEWELLIN: I think it right for one or two of us who served for a long time on the Joint Select Committee which went into this matter to give our views shortly to the House, but before doing so I would like to say, with reference to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin), that the only reason perhaps why he was interrupted once or twice was because on this occasion he was led into a large number of inaccuracies and, therefore, had to a certain degree to be corrected. In this question of sky-writing, it seems to me that there can be no possible claims for compensation arising, because you cannot buy the sky, you cannot get a vested interest in the sky, and indeed you cannot really operate this particular form of advertisement except at certain
times of the day and under certain weather conditions.
Those of us who were on this Committee—and there are five of us in the House, I see, to-night—all went on to the Committee, I think, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) with open minds on this subject. We thought it might be a desirable thing to have these advertisements portrayed on the sky, and we all went down to see them and to see for ourselves the two forms. As a matter of fact, a large number of those who came and gave evidence before us on that Committee as to the atrocious nature of them and the horrible ruin that they would cause to all local surroundings had not themselves ever seen that of which they were complaining, and I suspect that some of the Members of this House who talk about them being such a horrible invention have not really seen them portrayed on the sky.
Let us realise too that they can only be portrayed at night, when it is dark enough for the magic lantern effect to show up, that they can only be portrayed on a cloudy night, because you must have a cloud as your background, and that it does not pay to portray them in any but closely-populated areas, for the simple reason that the people who pay for the advertisements will not think it worth while unless a large number of people are likely to look up and see them. We also came to this conclusion after having heard the evidence, and partly in my case from my own knowledge, that here was a new invention which might be a very valuable asset in the defence of the country—and not at all aggressive in defence, because no harm can be done by a searchlight. By the utmost stretch of imagination it cannot be called an offensive weapon, but, from the point of view of aerial attack, and of coasting defence, with which I am rather more familiar as I commanded a coastal defence brigade, the fan shape of the light would be invaluable for spotting the enemy.
We found that here was an industry with a new invention which was giving a certain amount of employment. We came to the conclusion that to the best of our ability we ought to try to settle this matter once and for all. If the House allows this particular Clause to
go through in this Bill, it means that other Members of this House will have to occupy their time in considering, presumably, the same evidence to which we sat and listened for over 15 days. After all, we were appointed as a semi-judicial body to listen to the evidence. We were appointed with the assent of the House, and to the best of our ability we produced this report which, with the exception of the hon. Member for Lichfield, was unanimous. There will have to be a Committee of this House with counsel appearing on behalf of the people who have the patent rights in this invention. Evidence will be called for them and for the other side, and a large amount of the time of Members of the House will be taken up in hearing exactly the same evidence as has already been sifted by a Committee appointed by the House. We ought not to worry a young industry in that way, and we ought to legislate once and for all, and to deal with this matter with this question over the country as a whole. We made certain recommendations which contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Central South-wark I think were fairly sound and reasonable.
One of the main recommendations, as has already been read out by my right hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee, was that there should be a voluntary body set up. The voluntary committee that has been set up is exactly in accord with the recommendations of the Committee. The hon. Member was right in saying that it has not acted in consultation with the various societies which are particularly concerned with the preservation of amenities. They have not done so for the reason that they based their regulations on the report of the Committee, and they have seen to the best of their ability that these regulations are carried into effect. They have an organisation by which any complaints that are made as to sky-writing shall come to that committee. No complaint whatever has come to it since it was set up that those who operate searchlights have done anything at variance with the regulations and recommendations of our Committee.

Mr. KNIGHT: Is it not the case that in paragraph 44 the Select Committee recommended that the voluntary body
should act in consultation with inter aha the societies which are interested in the preservation of amenities.
Is not that part of the recommendation of the Committee?

Major LLEWELLIN: It certainly is, and I thought that I made the position quite clear. I said that the hon. Member for Central Southwark was quite right in saying that they had not consulted with them, but the reason was that they knew all the evidence that had been given by the societies, and they did not think it necessary that they should give all their evidence again. But apart from that, if there had been any complaints, these societies knew that the voluntary committee was acting; they could easily find out who the secretary was, and they could easily make any complaints to him if what the Committee of this House had said was right and proper had not been complied with. The complaints would have been made by these societies, and this voluntary body would have acted in consultation with them to see what further action was necessary.
The real point for the House is this: If we have set up by the Home Secretary a voluntary body of this sort, which has been acting now for almost a year, which has made its regulations, against which there has been no brief and no complaints whatever about sky-writing, is it not much better to allow the voluntary body to be the organisation to act in a thing of this sort? When people are actually carrying out these regulations and carrying out the report of a Committee of this House voluntarily and willingly, and helping as much as they can, is not that a better way of getting amenities preserved than having legislative compulsion? If it cannot be done voluntarily, then there should be compulsion, but if we can get people to come into line voluntarily and to do what some of us, at any rate, think is right and proper, is not that quite sufficient without getting more Clauses on the Statute Book and having one Clause for one county and a different Clause for another county? I ask the House to agree with this instruction, and not to have these things brought up time and time again. It is waste of time to set up any Select Committee to deal with any subject of this sort if no attention is to be paid to their recommendations, and if it is to be sifted again by another Com-
mittee. I believe in giving those people who have this invention fair play. If they do not act in accordance with the regulations, in accordance with which they have so far voluntarily acted, then bring in legislation to compel them to do it. While we are getting this voluntary action, let us leave it to them, and I am certain that in the end we shall find that; in broad outline, we shall get far greater satisfaction and preservation of amenities than if we try by legislative action to enforce a large number of compulsory regulations.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. HUTCHISON: This is a matter which interests me very considerably. I represent in Essex one rural council and four urban councils. We have heard from the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) of the amenities which the London County Council have put in the way of the people who live at Dagenham and Becontree. Those people live in what is, undoubtedly, an urban area, but one which has been developed as far as possible on the lines of a garden city. They have gone to live out there in order to get away from what I regard as the vulgarities of all these neon and other lights, which flash off and on all night long in the more populous areas. They live in pleasant homes, most of them with a garden in front, which they thoroughly appreciate, and why, when they go out in the evening, should they be faced with a sign in the sky which says "Eat more fruit"? They most probably do so already, and do not need such encouragement, but, nevertheless, those people would come under the definition of an urban district with a population of 20,000 or more. The county council are taking measures to protect those people against such advertisements if they do not want them.
It has already been admitted that the Select Committee suggested that some legislation should be adopted to deal with this matter and that pro tern things should be left to this voluntary association. The voluntary association seems to be working quite satisfactorily, because we hear that there has been no development of sky-writing. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken suggested that when the whole thing has become a complete nuisance it will be time enough to bring in legislation.
Surely that view is quite wrong. The county council are doing their best to protect the people in Essex from these signs and lights which they consider are not attractive. If the county council are taking action before the Government take action we ought to encourage the council to preserve the amenities of Essex, which are definitely well worth preserving.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. HALES: It would appear from the report of the Select Committee on skywriting that immediate legislation would be inadvisable and premature. The position of this new industry is somewhat analogous to that of the motor car industry in 1896, when the red flag was abolished. It was seven years before any serious legislation was passed— when the Motor Car Act of 1903 came into force. We have only to think of what would happen if we were to have a multiplicity of such applications as this from various counties. No doubt various regulations would be made, causing confusion in different parts of the country, and if a display drifted across the border of one county and into another a very nice legal problem would arise. It is also quite possible that restrictions may have to be made later. In the case of coastal counties, where these beams might interfere with lighthouses, that would be a serious matter to those at sea. Also, protection may possibly be necessary to prevent these lights flashing through the windows of churches during service, and of hospitals.
When this new industry has got thoroughly established we may be confronted with extensive competition among industries advertising in the sky. We might have half-a-dozen brands of whiskey advertised at the same time, and some humourist might display above them the words "Don't drink." Some very funny things might happen in such a case. Many years ago a billposter, either through being restricted in the space at his disposal or out of a sense of humour, displaying on adjoining spaces a theatrical and tailor's advertisement, provided the public with the announcement: "Mrs. Langtry will appear every evening in Johnson's 10s. 6d. trousers." Such things as that are quite feasible if we consider the possible developments of this industry. I suggest that in a few years' time, when the industry may or may not
have developed—and if it has not, no legislation will be necessary—it will be quite soon enough for action to be taken. Then it could be national legislation, regularising sky-writing all over the country, which would be a common sense arrangement which everybody would understand. I suggest that we should wait until that time comes.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I want to support the Instruction to delete this particular Clause, and I do so especially on account of the leaflet sent out to-day to hon. Members in the name of four societies who presume to be the custodians of the countryside. Many hon. Members will know that, in spite of the soothing rustic titles under which these societies promenade, they are in fact energised by some rather troublesome enthusiasts and I feel quite confident that in this leaflet we have the key to the whole trouble we are discussing this evening. I am satisfied that the Essex County Council would not have inserted this Clause in their omnibus Bill had not some of the friends who have favoured us with their views in this leaflet told them exactly how to do it. The county council, in endeavouring to please these gentlemen, find they have committed a faux pas, but cannot readily run away. But while we sympathise with the position of the council, this is an important matter from several standpoints, and I wall mention three in particular. First, there is the protection of new industrial enterprises. In this connection the Select Committee used these words:
Your Committee do not consider that the present is the time at which a new industry, however small, should be unnecessarily hampered or driven abroad unless there are the most cogent reasons for so doing.
In spite of that observation hon. Members who are at all in touch with the position will know that this small industry has been badgered about, and to my immense surprise one hon. Member to-night has been gloating over the statement that one of the constituent firms is in bankruptcy and 150 of its employes have been thrown out of employment. In these days it is a serious responsibility for this House to throw employes in a new industry back to the Employment Exchanges. Secondly, this is a technical matter which involves, among other things, the ques-
tion of flying. Heaven only knows that flying in this country, particularly civil aviation, suffers from sufficient interference and restriction. It is bad enough to deal with a restrictive authority that employs technical personnel and may be expected to appreciate some of the difficulties, but when in addition you lump upon the industry the views and decisions of 101 local authorities who are unskilled in the art, you make all development perfectly hopeless.
In this respect we may take a leaf out of the book of the United States of America. There, flying is coming up against serious difficulties, on account of the free-lance legislation of the States. There is Federal legislation and State legislation, in a country where the States are, in many cases, larger than the British Isles. The difficulty is very real, and I would hesitate to do anything to localise restrictive powers with regard to aviation. Thirdly, there is the question of expense. Here, the Select Committee spoke most firmly. They said that they were
averse to the creation of complicated or cumbrous administrative machinery for dealing with an enterprise that is yet hardly in being.
They went on to point out that it is when Parliament places on the local authorities more and more of such duties, that rates and taxes begin to rise. In the light of what the Select Committee said, I thought that I would find out whether the Essex County Council were prone to taking up every one of these new fads. Referring to the latest annual returns of local taxation for 1930-31 which have just been issued, comparing like with like and taking the various counties amound the Metropolis, one finds that the rates levied by the county councils are: Surrey, 6s. 3d.; Middlesex, 6s. 4d.; Hertfordshire, 8s.; Berkshire, 8s. 1d.; and Essex, 9s. 2d. That is exactly what one would expect if Essex ran after every one of the new fads suggested to them by the gentlemen who kindly favoured us with their rustic views to-day. There has been a complaint among some of the supporters of the Essex County Council that there has been no consultation with these rural associations. It has been adequately pointed out that so far there has been nothing about which to consult. If, on the other hand, the local authority had been dealing with this
matter, it is perfectly certain that there would have been an immense amount to consult about, and that the rates would have risen another 2d. or 3d.
Lastly, may I point. out one slightly technical point which may be overlooked by the House? It is that, in respect of what is known as "Smoke-writing," the Select Committee said:
Your Committee are of opinion that circumstances do not call for either the prohibition or the control of this form of enterprise and they, therefore, do not recommend any change in the existing law.
Smoke-writing is probably the most important and extensive form of sky advertising. In that respect, the Select Committee suggested that all was well. The Essex County Council would have power, by this Clause, to legislate for all types of sky advertising, irrespective of that definite recommendation of the Select Committee. ID the light of all that has been said by hon. Members on this subject, I sincerely hope that the House will support this Instruction to-have the Clause deleted

9.1 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I feel that I must intervene for a moment at this point in order that the Government view should be expressed in connection with this important matter. The history of it has been referred to, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). Clause 144 seeks to control two things: the projection of rays of light on the clouds, which is known as sky-writing, and, secondly, smoke-writing. Both those methods of advertisement were dealt with by the Select Committee, under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. That committee reported about 12 months ago. What they had to say about smoke-writing was very short. They said:
No evidence has been adduced which would lead them to suppose that smoke-writing has in the past affected the reasonable enjoyment of natural amenities, nor is there any indication that it is likely to do so in the future.".
Then, in paragraph 6, they said:
Your Committee are of opinion that circumstances do not call for either the prohibition or the control of this form of enterprise and they, therefore, do not recommend any change in the existing law.
So much for smoke-writing. For the moment, at any rate, we can dismiss
smoke-writing. With regard to skywriting, the Select Committee started by being apprehensive as to the benefits of this form of advertising, but, after witnessing sky-writing for themselves, their apprehension was considerably reduced. They said, on page 12:
They formed the opinion that this method of advertising is far more pleasant than many of the permanent forms to which the people of this country are unfortunately too accustomed.
Then they went on to say:
The Committee, in the light of their own experience, were not much impressed by the evidence of persons as to the hideousness of a sight which they had never witnessed.
Finally they reached the conclusion that the case for some form of control had been established, and that the control should be by a voluntary body rather than by an Act of Parliament, at any rate in the first instance, for on page 18 we read that the committee were:
averse to the creation of complicated or cumbrous administrative machinery for dealing with an enterprise that is yet hardly in being. It is more than probable that were such machinery devised and put into force it would soon require drastic overhauling and reconstruction to meet eventualities that cannot now be foreseen.
I submit that this administrative machinery would be set up by an Act of Parliament, and that, therefore, they contend in that paragraph that it is undesirable at this moment to pass legislation which would necessitate the setting up of that machinery. Then we come to the constitution of the Committee, which has already been quoted by several hon. Members. This voluntary body, which is also referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on Sky Writing, has been set up by the Secretary of State. It must be remembered that the definite recommendation was that in the meantime, although legislation might be necessary at some time, a voluntary body should be set up to control this matter. That body, as I have said, has been set up by the Secretary of State, and its constitution has been referred to in several of the speeches this evening, but I think it would be well if the House knew the exact constitution, for my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) seemed to confuse this Committee with the Conference, and he stated that there were certain Government representatives on the Conference.
The Conference, however, does not deal with the control, and that is the point that I want to make now. This body which deals with the control consists of the Advertising Association, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising, the British Poster Advertising Association, the Federation of British Industries, the National Chamber of Trade, the Incorporated Association of Retail Distributors and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. There are also included on that body two of the skywriting companies, namely, Sky Publicity, Limited, and Sky-Writing. Those are the only two firms that have ever operated as far as I know, and we have been told to-night that one of them has become bankrupt.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: My right hon. Friend will remember that I asked a question as to whether he could let us know from the Air Ministry how that particular firm was put into bankruptcy—whether it was entirely due to the Air Ministry.

Mr. HACKING: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I have made inquiries since my hon. and gallant Friend asked it, but I cannot answer it at the moment. I shall be Very glad to let him know as soon as I can get information which will enable me to write to him. At any rate it has been stated—I am not sure whether it is correct— that one of these firms has gone into bankruptcy.
A form of undertaking has been drawn up by the committee, and it has been signed by these two firms, Sky Publicity Limited and Sky-Writing. I shall refer to that form in a few moments. The Committee of Control, as this body is called, was only set up in October of last year, and the rules which it laid down were adopted in December. I need not go through them all; it is sufficient to say that they follow closely the recommendations of the Select Committee. They say that no sky-writing projector shall be operated for private purposes in any rural district or any borough or urban district with a population of less than 20,000 save with the written permission of its council. They say that there shall be no flood-lighting which would interfere at all with ancient monu-
ments or buildings of historical importance. They say that there shall be no lighting of this kind on Good Friday, Christmas Day, and certain other days; and they say that on any special occasion when sky-writing for private purposes Is likely to cause general offence to those by whom it is seen, no sky-writing projector shall be operated. The House will be interested to know that there cannot be any overlapping.
The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales) spoke of competition. He said that there might be many brands of whisky flashed on to the clouds, and that underneath them there should be another phrase: "Do not drink." But in point of fact these rules deal with that position, for they say that the operators of skywriting projectors shall endeavour by mutual arrangements to avoid any overlapping or obliteration of each other's sky-writing; so I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with that rule. The only two operating firms have given a definite and solemn undertaking to abide by these rules, and surely that should be sufficient at present. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) spoke of vested interests. He told us that compensation in the past had had to be given in respect of the regulation of advertisements, and also had to be provided for in the Petroleum Act. I really do not think he need be very anxious on account of vested interests so far as this particular industry is concerned; it will be a long time before sufficient headway is made in the industry, and at the moment, so far as the advertisers at any rate are concerned, it certainly appears as though it does not pay to advertise.
My hon. and gallant Friend complained that the voluntary body is composed of those interested in advertising. That is perfectly true, but the important thing to remember in this connection is that this committee have produced some rules, which are being adhered to by the interested parties. May I also point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Select Committee recommended the present constitution of the Committee of Control? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes the view that the question of legislation on this subject, and particularly, as in this case, legisla-
tion of a purely local character, should be deferred until we have had greater experience of the working of the rules. Generally speaking, unless legislation is shown to be necessary, it is undesirable. Our experience has not yet been sufficient to enable us to know whether a general Bill covering the whole country is required. As yet, as has been pointed out by several speakers tonight, no nuisance has been created. It seems to me and to the Government unnecessary to legislate in advance, with the faint possibility—one cannot, put it any higher —that a nuisance may be created at some distant time.
It is true that the voluntary control board has, as I have said, only been in existence since last October, but there has been a complete absence of complaints. No trouble has been experienced even in Essex, so I am informed, and, consequently, it is reasonable to suppose that the board is exercising effective control. When the time arrives when there are even indications that a statutory control of sky-writing is becoming necessary, then will be the time, and not until then, I submit, for legislation to be considered and produced; and, when legislation is produced, it should be of a general character, and not in the form of a provision in a local Act. To sum up, as there are up to the present no indications of the necessity for this kind of legislation, and as, in any event, this form of local legislation and local control would not be sufficient to deal with the problem if and when it did arise, I would ask the House to vote for the Instruction to leave out Clause 144, and in so doing to follow the lead of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, who was the Chairman of the Select Committee, and than whom nobody has greater knowledge of this subject.

9.15 p.m.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I do not know that I should have intervened but for a remark of my right hon. Friend in his closing sentences. He laid some insistence on the fact that there had been no nuisance created up to the present by sky-writing. If that be the case, it is rather difficult to understand why the Government should have seen fit to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of sky-writing in the
first instance, secondly, why that Select Committee should have thought fit actually to recommend that sky-writing should be prohibited in certain localities, and further, why that same Select Committee should recommend that another committee should be set up to regulate and draw up rules and, in general, to try to make sky-writing conform to some reasonable practice.

Mr. HACKING: I made it clear that a Committee of Control had been set up. Since the Committee was set up, there have been no complaints at all, and it was because the Committee of Control had been set up and was working satisfactorily that I thought it unnecessary to do anything more than request that this Instruction should be accepted by the House.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I understand that my right hon. Friend admits the existence of a nuisance, although he contends that the arrangements made to deal with that nuisance are satisfactory. I think it must be agreed on all hands that, if there had not been a nuisance, or at least the fear of a nuisance, the Government would never have taken the action that it did nor would the Select Committee have made the recommendations that it did. [An HON. MEMBER: "The possibility of a nuisance."] Whether there actually be a nuisance or whether there is a possibility that there will be a nuisance, let us take some reasonable preliminary step once and for all to see that there is no nuisance. I invite the House to consider what would have been the position in regard to the raging controversy of road versus rail. Suppose the Minister of Transport, we will say 10 or a dozen years ago, when the lorries that came back from the War and were thrown on to the market promiscuously were beginning to be worn out, and when firms began to undertake to build these colossal motor buses and heavy motor vehicles which are the curse of our roads, had taken proper steps and definitely said that no motor-bus of more than a certain seating capacity, or no heavy motor lorry of more than a certain weight should be permitted to be constructed, we should never have had this controversy at all. At least it would have been very largely mitigated. We should have acted by "good avoidance" by acting in time. We know perfectly
well from our Parliamentary experience that a Government's hands are always full. In every Session there are major pieces of legislation which the Government feel it their duty to introduce, and there is not, in fact, time for the Government always to be acting in advance of various contingencies taking place. This is one of them. Here, almost fortuitously so to speak, the House has an opportunity, by supporting the Essex County Council in the proposals that it is bringing to the House, to stop something once and for all which may become a nuisance, and to deal with which some future Government will be compelled to take time.

Major LLEWELLIN: Why does my hon. and gallant Friend say it will be necessary for some future Government to do it if this voluntary control still continues to operate in the way it is doing at present?

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I understand that those who are in favour of this Instruction first deny the nuisance, then are driven to admit that they have set up several bodies to deal with the nuisance, and now are claiming that those bodies are capable of dealing with a nuisance which they themselves contend has never existed. It would, therefore, appear that Parliament would be acting reasonably in giving the county council this special power for which it asks. We have heard a good deal about vested interests. Let us consider whether it is better to allow an infant industry to be bom, for capital to be invested in it, for wage-earners to have their hopes of employment raised by the setting up, perhaps, of a factory, and then for Parliament to have to put its foot down and say, "That industry is out of order. We are not going to tolerate it." Surely it is better to stop the birth of the industry in the first instance. The capital will be available for some other enterprise more useful to the community. Wage-earners will draw their wages from that same capital fund, which will create some other form of production. It is far better, surely, that we should try to avoid allowing an industry to come into being, losing capital and raising false hopes among wage-earners, when all the time we have it at the back of our minds that one day Parliament will be obliged to come in to control it, and perhaps to strangle the industry just when it shows
some signs of growth. For these reasons I have decided that it is my duty to vote against the Instruction, and I hope that that will conform to the general sense of the House.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has done the very best he can for the Essex County Council, which area he represents, but it seems to me a very curious argument that a new and promising new industry, which is likely to give employment without interfering with the amenities of the country, ought to be suppressed because later on there is a possibility that action may have to be taken with regard to it. If we did that in connection with every industry that it is proposed to start, there would not be very much chance of adding to the employment that we are all so anxious to see. I was a member of the Committee, and I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not able to be here to listen to the very convincing speech of the Chairman.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I have been here through the whole course of the Debate.

Mr. MANDER: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think he was sitting in another place.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: No, I have sat here the whole time.

Mr. MANDER: I take the view that it is not desirable to hamper any new industry which is likely to develop unless some strong case is made out for doing so, and I think, after the careful inquiry that was made by the Select Committee last year, no such case has been made out. We took the view that, if this new industry is properly controlled, there is no reason why it should not be allowed to develop along ordinary lines and, so far as experience has gone since that time, voluntary control, in accordance with our recommendations, has operated with complete success and without any complaint of any kind being made. The question has been asked why there has not been consultation, in accordance with our recommendations, with societies interested in the preservation of amenities. The answer is that they have accepted in all respects the recommenda-
tions of the Committee, and consultation has not taken place simply because there has been nothing to consult about up to the present. They would have been only too delighted to have consulted had any demand been put forward.
There is one small point which has not been referred to so far. In this Clause 144 the Essex County Council seeks powers to deal not only with rays of light but smoke advertising, presumably referring to what has been done up to the present time by aeroplanes. I would point out that in our recommendations we said specifically that there were no grounds for taking any action whatsoever with regard to that. That is another instance where the County Council are seeking to go in direct opposition to the recommendations of your Committee. There has been sent round to every hon. Member—I have had three copies altogether—a paper signed by a number of societies such as that for the Preservation of Rural England, the Metropolitan Public Garden Association and others, urging that the instruction should not be supported. When one gets a memorandum of this kind one is entitled to ask what is the value of the evidence put forward. We had all these different Societies before us and they gave evidence, and one question put to them was, "Have you seen sky-writing?" The almost universal reply was, "No. we have not." Some of them were frank enough to say that they ought to have seen it. Others said they had no intention of seeing it, and that it would not have made the slightest difference. Others were just as much against it, whatever it looked like, and the Dean of Westminster went completely off the deep end and said that not only had he not seen it, but if he ever had the opportunity of seeing it he would look in the other direction.
Those are the people who are asking this House to condemn unheard, or rather unseen, this new discovery. We took our duties in a different way and decided to see sky-writing for ourselves. Starting, as everybody would, with a prejudice against it, we came to the conclusion that if properly controlled and if there was nothing offensive about the advertising, it was something which compared very favourably indeed with many of the advertisements that you see in Piccadilly Circus and other parts of
London at present. Personally, I take the view, which I know is shared by others, that when you get a very big industrial area where the workers have very little to look to in the evenings and are going through a very difficult time, to be able to look up at the heavy lowering cloud which is all they have to look at to night½[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members protesting at this statement unless they have themselves seen what I have referred to. If they have, they will agree with me. For people in those districts to look up and see in the sky really beautiful representations is something that is not at any rate going to detract from the amenities, and it certainly seems most unlikely to develop into that nuisance which the hon. Member on behalf of the Essex County Council has laid before us with such avidity. I hope, therefore, that the House will support the Committee which they appointed. We did our best. There are conclusions, of course, which can be challenged, but we did feel, after 15 meetings, with evidence put forward and heard, that the recommendations we were making were fair, reasonable and likely to deal with the subject for some time to come. I hope in these circumstances the House will support the Instruction.

9.33 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I should like to refer to one aspect of the question which is deserving of consideration. I listened to the hon. Member below me, and his was the kind of argument which faced the

automobile in the early days and compelled it to have before it a man with a red flag. That sort of thing prevented a new industry from coming to its full tide of prosperity for a very long time. Now we have in sky-writing the beginning of a new industry which may appear to some as if it might be a nuisance. Some already regard it as a potential nuisance. It may be that some of those hon. Members are already in the clouds. We are deficient in aerial defence in our cities, and one of the ways to meet aerial bombardments is by means of searchlights. Those searchlights are not yet perfect by any means. The inventors of sky-writing have been able to put a point of light and to illuminate the sky and give a definition which has baffled experimenters in the past. Therefore, if we start with skywriting, with a group of experimenters searching the clouds and looking up into the heavens, it is not beyond feasible expectancy that someone will make such a discovery as will enable us to be more accurate in bringing down hostile aeroplanes. Therefore, I hope the House will vote for this Instruction and will not stand in the way of commerce and invention, for, after all, a step forward in a new industry and a new invention may lead to other industries and inventions which may be of tremendous importance.

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 144.

The House divided, Ayes, 121 Noes, 72.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[19.34 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Apsley, Lord
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baillia, Sir Adrian W. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Law, Sir Alfred


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Greene, William P. C.
Leckie, J. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Liddall, Walter S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mabane. William


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hales, Harold K.
Macmillan. Maurice Harold


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burgln, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Merrlman, Sir F. Boyd


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Milne, Charles


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howard, Tom Forrest
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chisw'k)


Conant, R. J. E.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Curry, A. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries;
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Munro, Patrick


Doran, Edward
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington.N.)
Ivoagh, Countess of
Pearson, William G.


Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Petherick, M.


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Remer, John R.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Robinson, John Roland
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Soper, Richard
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sotheron- Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Weddgrburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Runge, Norah Cecil
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Spencer, Captain Richard A
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Womerstey, Walter James


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stourton, Hon. John J.



Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Strauss, Edward A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Tate, Mavis Constance
Mr. Herbert Williams and Mr.


Scone, Lord
Thompson, Luke
Simmonds.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)
Maxton, James.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner. Major James


Attlee. Clement Richard
Harbord, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick. Colin M.


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burnett, John George
Horobin, Ian M.
Pybus, Percy John


Cape, Thomas
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Rea, Walter Russell


Christle, James Archibald
Jenkins, Sir William
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Renwick. Major Gustav A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Drewe, Cedric
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)


Edwards, Charles
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Knight, Holford
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall. Bodmin)
Little, Graham-. Sir Ernest
White, Henry Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lunn, William
Withers, Sir John James


Gower, Sir Robert
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sir Vivian Henderson and Colonel




Ruggles-Brise.


Resolution agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.41 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill comes to this House from another place where it has received exhaustive examination, and the publicity which has attended the proposals contained in the Bill to a large extent relieves me from the necessity of entering into any detailed exposition of its proposals. The Bill contains a number of unrelated proposals, the one connection between the different proposals being that they are all with one exception in the nature of reforms recommended by the Committee which was appointed in 1932 to consider the state of business in the Supreme Court and to recommend whether greater expedition in the dispatch of business or greater economy could be effected. The Committee was presided
over by the present Master of the Rolls, Lord Hanworth, and the Committee showed a great deal of expedition, because, although only appointed at the end of 1932, it presented an interim report in March of the present year.
The House will notice that I describe it as an interim report. Lord Hanworth's Committee is still sitting. It is engaged in investigating other proposed reforms in the administration of justice, and, no doubt, the House will have submitted to it on some future occasion, not in the far distance, I hope, other proposals to effect the more speedy administration of jus-tide and to produce greater economy. The report was unanimous. The Committee has had, as one might expect, the assistance of many experts in the many matters which came before the consideration of the Committee, and, as far as I can form any opinion about the verdict of the public, the proposals of the Committee have met with a very large measure of approval. I will not say "with unanimous approval," because one or two of the proposals about which I
shall have to say a few words are controversial in their nature and are likely to divide opinion to some extent. But even on the more controversial proposals contained in the Bill, my impression is that, both within and without the legal profession, approval is given to these proposals.
It will probably meet with the convenience of the House if I take the five topics which are dealt with by the Bill, and say shortly, and with as little use of technical language as I can, what the proposals are. A proposal which has greatly interested the profession and the public is the proposal that grand juries shall be abolished. Clause 1 contains the bald and somewhat dramatic statement that "Grand juries are hereby abolished." I have a feeling of real regret, I might almost say of sadness, that so great and historical an institution as that of the grand jury should be abolished. Nobody knows where the spring of the grand jury is to be found in English history. It certainly goes back some V00 years or more. Some people think that it is to be traced back to an institution existing even in pre-Norman times, and it is rather a sad reflection to think that in this year of grace we are finally proposing to part with an institution that has played so great a part in the development of our liberties as the grand jury, an institution which probably is very nearly a thousand years old.
But we all recognise that in this practical age we cannot afford to pay too high a price for sentiment, and I hope that I shall be found in agreement with the opinion of hon. Members if I say that I think the right conclusion is that grand juries are not serving any really useful purpose and are at the same time very expensive and very troublesome to a large number of people, and that we ought to be prepared to abolish them. I think I can satisfy the House that, although they do serve a useful purpose from one point of view, in the total sum of all the considerations that occur to one they may be said to be almost a superfluity in the administration of justice. Less than one per cent. of the cases that come before them are cases in which the Bill is thrown out, and for the purpose of bringing about that almost negligible result more than 22,000 persons are summoned in each year to attend as grand
jurymen. In 1931 some 22,272 persons received summonses to attend the grand jury. Probably the cost of the administration of criminal justice is as to one-third of the total cost due to the summoning of grand juries. As everybody knows who is acquainted with the system, witnesses are required to attend on the first day of the Assize or, in the case of London, the first day of the Session at the Old Bailey. Some witnesses, not all of them, are heard by the grand jury in sufficient number to enable the grand jury to form an opinion whether there is a prima facie case against the prisoner. Very often when the Assizes or the Sessions are lengthy the witnesses have to wait in the town or city to which they are summoned, or they have to go away and come back at great expense and inconvenience. Therefore, both on the score of inconvenience to those who are summoned—and no doubt in many cases it is inconvenient—and on the score of expense, grand juries may be said to be in some danger; and when one reflects that all this expense and inconvenience only result in less than 1 per cent. of the total cases submitted to them being cases in which it is found that there is no prima facie case against the prisoner warranting a trial, I think one may fairly come to the conclusion that, historic as the institution is, it is not one which in these days we can really justify.
It must be remembered that when a Bill is thrown out by a grand jury it does not mean that the prisoner is relieved of the necessity of preparing his defence. He has by that time incurred all the expense, if he proposes to incur any, and is able to incur any, of preparing his defence, summoning his witnesses and instructing his solicitor or counsel to defend him. It is true that he is saved the ignominy and publicity of trial before a petty jury if the Bill is thrown out, but that is the only advantage which in the great majority of cases results if the Bill is thrown out. Reluctantly, and without any doubt as to whether the decision is the right one or not, I ask the House to accept the proposal embodied in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
Clause 2 merely provides the procedure which is necessary in order to take the place of the grand jury. Obviously, there must be some machinery to provide for a bill of indictment
coming before the petty jury in due form and due course. I will not trouble the House with the details of Clause 2, which are somewhat technical. They are due to the fact that, as all lawyers in the House remember, it is open for anybody to prefer what is called a Voluntary bill, so that if it becomes an indictment it may be tried by a jury without the necesity of obtaining a committal by a magistrate. That is subject to that which lawyers know all about in the Vexatious Indictments Act, and I will not trouble the House with the technical details. Suffice it that Clause 2 is merely necessary because we must have some procedure to take the place of the present procedure in connection with grand juries
Clause 6 deals with amendment of the procedure as to trials by jury. That has nothing to do with the grand jury. We are accustomed to hear the jury spoken of as the palladium of British liberty. Again, it is a great historic institution. There is no proposal to restrict the right of trial by jury or the necessity of trial by jury in criminal cases, on indictment, nor is there any attempt or proposal to restrict the right of trial by jury in cases of libel, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, seduction, breach of promise of marriage, or in cases where there is a charge of fraud against either party. It is proposed that in all other cases a party shall only have a jury if he can persuade the judge that it is a case that ought to be tried by a jury. Perhaps I have not put it quite accurately. There is no suggestion that either party must discharge what we call the onus of satisfying the judge that his case must be tried with or without a jury. What we ask the House to enact is that the judge shall have a discretion as to whether the case shall be tried with or without a jury, except in those cases which I have mentioned and in which the party will have the right to demand a jury if he so desires. The reason for giving the judge a discretion to order a case to be tried with or without a jury is that a large number of cases which are tried with juries could just as well be tried by a judge alone. It must not be supposed that we are without some experience on that point. The great majority of running down cases
due to accidents in the streets which are tried in the county courts are tried without a jury and the decision of the county court judge gives complete satisfaction, I will not say to the party who loses the case, but, broadly speaking, to the parties engaged in the case. There is no reason for believing that a judge of the High Court will not, in the great majority of cases, give just as much satisfaction, and discharge his duties with as much efficiency as the county court judge, in running down cases about accidents in the streets. There are a great number of other cases in which juries are summoned which could just as conveniently and much more quickly and cheaply be tried by a judge alone; and what we are proposing is that in these cases it shall be left to the judge to say whether or not a jury shall be summoned to try the case.
Complaints have been made from time to time as to the cost of litigation. This proposal will in many cases materially reduce the costs of trials. It will undoubtedly result in shortening the time which cases take; you can try a case much more quickly before a judge alone than you can with a jury, and the proposal is, therefore, in the interests of all litigants, whose cases may in future be tried before a judge alone, if he so orders. In another place the original proposal was that this discretion should apply even to cases where a charge of fraud was involved, but by a suitable Amendment that Clause has been altered so that in cases of fraud the person concerned will have the right to trial by jury. I think the House will agree that this is an improvement, and if it accepts it as a workable Clause I think it will be acceptable in practice to litigants.
The next group of Clauses to which I will refer are those which deal with matters connected with litigation in which the Crown is involved. Clause 3 provides for determining by summary and cheap process the question of liability as to Death Duties. There are cases in which there is no dispute as to the facts or as to the amount of the duty, or anything of that sort; the sole question is as to the construction of a particular Section in an Act of Parliament. In those cases it is desirable to provide a cheap and summary method of obtaining a decision of the court, so that if the
subject is liable at all he may discharge his liability by immediate payment, the only question being the construction of a document or an Act of Parliament. Clause 4 provides certain alternative ways in which the Crown may enforce payment. As everyone knows, the Crown at present is obliged to litigate by using forms of procedure which are not generally familiar to the ordinary practitioner, still less to the public, although those who use these forms are in no difficulty in using them, and I think they really work as cheaply and as conveniently as the forms which ordinary litigants are obliged to use. At any rate, there has been a sense of grievance that there is some mystery about the forms in Crown proceedings, and this Bill, in Clause 4, provides that the ordinary methods, and the ordinary forms, may be used by the Crown in cases in which at present the Crown has to resort to process by way of Information, be it Latin or English Information. The details are somewhat technical, and if any Member has any Amendment to suggest, the matter can be dealt with more conveniently in Committee.
Clause 7 effects a change in the law which has long been desired by the public. It permits the court to order costs to be paid by or to the Crown in accordance with the ordinary practice applying to litigation between subject and subject. There have been many inroads on the old. rule which is that the Crown neither pays nor receives costs. It certainly is not quite as complete as it once was. The House will agree with the Government in thinking that the time has come to abolish whatever is left of the old rule and provide that the Crown shall pay when it loses, and be paid costs when it wins.
Clause 5 does not deal with Crown litigation, but with some of those forms and processes which most people regard with awe, unless they are members of the legal profession. They are writs which we call prerogative writs, mandamus, and certiorari, and prohibition; by which excesses of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts are restrained; they are the processes by which a Government Department is kept within due limits. The present system requires an application to be made in open court, before a court composed of
two or more learned judges; it is generally called obtaining a rule nisi. After the rule is obtained in the absence of the person against whom the rule is sought to be made, the whole thing begins again. It is thought that it will be enough in future to have one bite at the cherry. A person who desires to move for a writ of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus will have to obtain leave to do so from a judge, probably in chambers, in accordance with rules to be made, and the matter will then be dealt with at one hearing in the ordinary way.
That leaves me with only one other Clause—Clause 8. This provides that, for the purpose of facilitating certain business of the Masters in Lunacy, the Lord Chancellor may delegate to certain qualified persons duties which at present can only be performed by the Master in Lunacy. It is the proposal advanced by Lord Hanworth's Committee, and I imagine that nobody in the House will disagree with it, because it is a proposal to expedite business in lunacy.
That is, shortly and with as little technicality as I find necessary, the Bill which I have now to ask the House to accept. I may remind the House that one proposal made by Lord Hanworth's Committee has been carried into effect without the necessity for legislation; that is the proposal to shorten the Long Vacation. The Long Vacation has often been discussed; it is at any rate to be shortened for one year, and the necessary-steps have been taken to that effect.
These other reforms which I have mentioned are some of the reforms required or proposed by Lord Hanworth's Committee. The alteration of the right to trial by jury, which I mentioned secondly in my observations, might have been effected by rule—a rule, that is to say, made by the Rules Committee subject to the necessary formalities. But it was thought desirable, as it concerned a matter in which the public is so largely interested, that it should be effected by legislation rather than by rule. I hope that the House will think that the Government have adopted the right course in putting it into the Bill so that hon. Members cam give expression to their opinion about it.
But I might say this in conclusion. As with all legal reforms, you will find
some people who prefer the old. But we must be prepared— and I speak especially as a lawyer at this moment—to consider that for once the new is better. As lawyers, we naturally like to cling to precedent. Our whole English system is based on the rule of precedent, and we naturally think that the forms which we have been accustomed to use, the law under which we have been accustomed to practise, are worth preserving. Nevertheless, in these matters with which this Bill deals the public have long looked for some change, and I think that they will agree with the Government in putting these proposals before the House. I hope that the House will be prepared to give its approval to the Bill, so that it may be possible finally to enact it with a view to putting these reforms into operation in the next sittings of the courts.

10.10 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I never thought that I should see the right hon. and learned Gentleman standing up at that Box pulling down the so-called ancient safeguards of the Constitution. But we have witnessed that refreshing sight this evening, and it will, I hope, inspire us to better efforts ourselves at some future date. So far as the grand jury system is concerned, we entirely agree with the view which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward: that this archaic procedure has ceased to have any reality in modern days, and that the extent and inconvenience which are attached to it are not justified by its usefulness. As regards the question of the Crown procedure, I am sure that everybody will welcome an assimilation of that procedure to the more ordinary forms which are known in the courts. The difficulties of English and Latin information are quite sufficient, even to some practitioners, and the form of interrogatories which can be administered under them has often led litigants to be overcome with fear. Now that the ordinary procedure has to be adopted and the ordinary rule of costs is to be applied, litigants will feel that they are more on an equality with the Crown when they come against it in litigation.
But the major matter with which this Bill deals is probably that contained
in Clause 6, the abolition of juries in certain types of cases. The common jury is a very valuable asset to the common man. There is a certain sympathetic humanity about a jury, which does not always exist so far as all learned judges are concerned. Though we quite agree that there are a number of cases in which it is probably not necessary to have juries, I personally take the view—and I think it is shared by a great many other people—that there is a type of case which is not included in the reservation of this Clause and which perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider carefully before the Bill goes further. I am speaking of the cases where the character of one or other of the parties comes into issue. It may be that a man is dismissed because of some reason given accusing him of some deed which is dishonourable or of which he would not care to be found guilty. Such a case would be just as serious for that man as would be a case of fraud, or of breach or promise of marriage, or of libel or slander. In fact, it might well be that the defence in such a case would raise almost precisely the same issue as would be raised in a libel or slander case. The defence in itself would be a libel, which would be tried on the issue raised.
In such a case as that it seems to me that a person should, if he so desires, be entitled to the protection of a jury just as much as in some of the cases mentioned here, and indeed more. Cases like breach of promise of marriage, for instance, are not cases to be encouraged in any way at all. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could possibly devise words which might be added to paragraph (a) or (b), or whether he could expand paragraph (a) to cover such a case as I have in mind. I think he will agree with me that, from the point of view of the person whose character comes into issue, such a case is just as serious a matter as any of those mentioned here. In fact, it may be a far more serious matter than a mere question of fraud. With that reservation, and the possibility that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may introduce words to cover it, we are on the whole glad that this Bill has been brought forward, and we hope that it may assist in removing some of the delays which are still rife in the courts.
Perhaps, if the learned Solicitor-General is going to say anything on that matter, he could give us a little information on what the position is as regards delays in the courts. At the present moment one hears from time to time rather disturbing rumours concerning the condition of jury actions. I am not really conversant with that subject myself, but I come across people who are. On many occasions recently I have been told that actions have had to be settled because they have been so long in the list that the parties have thought it was better to settle them than to risk their hanging on and hanging on indefinitely. Whether this Bill is likely to produce any cure for that situation, I should have thought was extremely doubtful. If it is not, perhaps the learned Gentleman will tell us whether any other steps are likely to be taken in order to expedite the hearing of that class of action.

10.15 p.m.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Bill. With regard to the question of the grand juries, there is now no very strong demand for their retention. This has been a subject of very acute controversy, and at one time I held a very strong view upon it, but the more one sees of the administration of the criminal law the more one is impressed by this position—that a grand jury seldom interferes with a bill of indictment at the present time unless directly instructed to do so by the presiding judge. The result is that the throwing out of a bill is simply an anticipation of what the judge would do if he had to try the case. One result of this Measure in regard to grand juries is, I think, not without value. During the War the presiding judge had cast upon him a duty which was equivalent to that of a grand jury of deciding whether a bill of indictment should be preferred or not. Now, it is provided that if a man or woman has been committed for trial or the leave of the judge has been obtained to present an indictment, the matter has to come before an ordinary jury.
In many respects that is an advantage. There is not the same necessity for the intervening authority of the grand jury because of the great care with which as a rule cases are dealt with by those who commit them for trial. But if it should
be necessary to exercise the power of practically withdrawing a case from the jury or directing the jury so to deal with it that the accused is acquitted, because there is no case against him—which is the position now when a bill is thrown out—it is surely better that that should not be done, merely on the initiative of the judge directing a grand jury who act in secret and without evidence put before them openly in court, or by the direction of an individual. It is far better that the man who has been improperly committed should get, as he will get under the practice to be initiated by this Measure, the definite verdict of a jury that he is entitled to acquittal of the offence with which he has been charged. That has been a great difficulty in the position of defendants in matters of this sort. It has been necessary in some cases to say to the grand jury, "Here is a case in which you must consider very carefully whether you will prefer an indictment or not." If the grand jury throw out the Bill there is no report of the matter. Very often these cases escape attention altogether, whereas the man who has been improperly committed for trial has probably had to suffer the publicity of prolonged reports of the case in the newspapers in its earlier stages. That publicity may have damaged his reputation but nothing like the same publicity is given to the fact that the grand jury has thrown out the bill. If the case opened before an ordinary jury and the judge asked prosecuting counsel whether he could sustain a conviction upon the evidence which he had opened, the matter would be argued out in court and it could be made clear with full publicity that the man was entitled to acquittal if he was so entitled. He would thus get that clearing of his character which is an essential part of our criminal jurisdiction. The more publicity given to it the more valuable it is. That would be in some respects an improvement in the administration of our Criminal law.
On the question of juries there is an acute division of opinion, but there is one matter in regard to which I would thank the Government. The Bar Council considered this subject and there was one point on which they felt strongly, namely, that it ought to be dealt with by Act of Parliament and not by Rule. We all recognised that it was possible to make this change by Rule, in which case there
could not have been the discussion that there is upon this Bill, and we are very thankful indeed to the Government that they have proceeded by Bill instead. But I cannot disguise that there are very strong feelings both ways in regard to this matter, and, therefore, in what I am saying I am expressing my own individual opinion, and I cannot claim to be expressing the views except of a number of the members of the Bar Council, because a number think the other way. My own view is that this is a provision which will work well and ought to be supported. Mention has been made of the question of expense. I think everyone will agree that if it were a question of doing any hardship or in any way reducing the efficiency of the administration of justice, the question of expense would be a matter not worthy of consideration, but one has to face this position, that at the present time you have a very large number of cases— particularly, as the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has said, running-down cases—which are tried by jury but which might very well be tried by a judge alone, with equally satisfactory results.
It is said that if you get damages assessed by a judge alone, you will get very wide variations, because a judge is only one individual, and in a jury you have the combined views of 12 ordinary citizens. It may work a certain amount of inequality, but everybody who is conversant with that particular class of case, knows that from time to time there are verdicts of juries in regard to damages which are really oppressive and wrong, sometimes from the point of view of meanness, more often from the point of view that the damages are much too large. Under our present system it is practically impossible to set right matters of that kind where the action is tried before a jury, because the difficulty of getting the court to interfere in a wrong assessment of damages where the matter has been tried by a jury is very great indeed. The principle upon which the court acts in dealing with a jury's verdict is that if there is any evidence to support that verdict, or, on a question of damages, unless it is so unreasonable that no 12 men could have arrived at it, the Court of Appeal will not interfere, whereas in the case of an appeal from the decision of a judge alone, it is very much easier
to get the Court of Appeal to revise and reconsider the general position.
I cannot help thinking that, on the whole, this provision for getting these matters largely dealt with by judge alone will lead to a greater equalisation of the damages which are awarded in cases of that kind. Everybody realises that in a large number of these cases trial by judge alone will be a very great saving of public time, and I think that that saving of public time will be obtained without any injury to the public weal. One feels that there is a certain amount of justification for the consideration put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Solicitor-General with regard to cases of wrongful dismissal. On the other hand, any attempt to introduce such a wide definition as cases which may affect private character, I cannot help feeling, is fraught with great difficulty, because it is almost impossible to imagine any case in which some question of private character may not arise. It certainly would be intolerable if in every one of these cases where there was a bare possibility of that kind, it was absolutely incumbent on the judge to order a trial by jury.
On the other hand, those matters which were put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman are matters which would, and could, be put before the learned judge where an application is made to him as to the mode of trial, and I venture to think that if it were represented to a judge in an action for wrongful dismissal, that action involved issues of fraud against the plaintiff, or issues which possibly might lead to the same sort of issue as in a criminal case, no judge would refuse a plaintiff in those circumstances a jury when he was asked to exercise his discretion with regard to the mode of trial. In regard to the other matters in this Bill, they are extremely useful Clauses. They will make for the improvement of the administration of justice, and, speaking generally, and with a fairly long experience of the practice of the courts, I venture to thank His Majesty's Government for this Bill, and to hope that it may have a speedy passage through the House.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: It is customary for Members addressing the House to say that they are not going to speak for any
length of time, and I often find on those occasions that the speeches last from 20 minutes to half-an-hour. I merely desire to ask one or two questions, and to add some comments to those that have already been made. I join with the ex-Solicitor-General in respect of the wrongful dismissal type of action, and I trust that the Law Officers of the Crown will see their way to make some provision in Clause 6 for the inclusion of such cases in those which are to be tried by a jury. I am afraid that I must join issue with the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) for, although I have a much more limited experience, I find that certain judges, even when both parties desire the assistance of a jury, constantly refuse to allow a jury to be provided. So I feel that it is not a matter which can safely be left to the discretion of the judge, and that it should be included in some form of words in. Clause 6. I join with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in asking the Solicitor-General as to the state of the list to-day, and whether it is not a fact that, in spite of the New Procedure Rules, there is already considerable congestion of business. Speaking from my personal experience, I know that dates as late as December are now being given to persons applying for the trial of their actions in the New Procedure List, and it appears to me—I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to relieve our anxieties—that the New Procedure List is actually becoming as congested as the old list was. I wonder whether he will be able to tell us what steps can be taken to ease that situation.
I have one more question in relation to Clause 7. I see that according to that Clause a most beneficial provision is made by which the Crown is to pay costs in future. I would ask the Law Officers whether something is being done to assist the unfortunate litigant against the Crown in respect of matters like discovery. I have in mind a case in which I was involved, in which the litigant happened to be a manufacturer at an aerodrome. At the end of the War the Government took charge of the aero drome and of all documents which related to the aerodrome, and when by Petition of Right the litigant attempted to secure payment for work which he had done for the Crown, it was found that the Crown had his documents and would not
give them up. I do not know by what right the Crown acted in that way. I hope that if there is such a right the Crown will see its way to waive it in this respect, in the same way as it has in respect of costs. I join with other hon. Members in welcoming this Bill, and I hope that it will have a speedy passage. into law.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: As a member of the solicitors' branch of the legal profession I would like to endorse what has been said by other speakers, and to welcome the introduction of this Bill. The only complaint I may have to make about it is that it is not of a more drastic character. When the Committee was appointed a few months ago we hoped that its recommendations would go very much further than they have gone in the interim report, and I trust that when the final report is submitted we may witness a large number of other reforms in connection with legal procedure. I would like to support what has been said by more than one Member with regard to the abolition of grand juries. Solicitors who have engaged in practice in the criminal courts will realise that the existence of a grand jury has very often caused considerable expense not merely to the county in respect of prosecutions but to those who are concerned with the defence.
The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greavea-Lord) referred to the fact that a person who is indicted would very much prefer to find himself discharged as a result of a direction by the judge to a common jury that there-was no case against him, and have a verdict of "Not Guilty" recorded. In the only case which I can recollect in my own county in which a grand jury cut a bill at quarter sessions the man against whom the bill had been preferred was very much annoyed, because whereas an enormous amount of publicity had been given to the case before the justices no one on earth knew how it was he had succeeded in getting off at quarter sessions. Had the case been tried before a common jury in the ordinary way, and there had been a direction by the judge that a verdict of "Not guilty" should be returned, the man would have been very much more satisfied.
As to juries in civil oases, I am satisfied, as a solicitor who has been engaged in a very large number of cases, that the proposed reform has been long awaited. Reference has been made to the position in county courts. During a practice covering something like 40 years I can recollect only two occasions upon which, on the instruction of clients, I have asked for a jury in the county court. Although a large number of clients know that they are entitled to a jury, invariably they prefer to let the matter be decided by the county court judge. I believe that there is the same confidence among the great majority of litigants in the decision of a High Court judge.
There are one or two matters upon which I should like to have information, especially with regard to Clause 6. At the bottom of page 6 of the Bill and at the top of page 7, the Clause states:
Save as aforesaid, any action to be tried in that Division may, in the discretion of the Court or a judge, be ordered to be tried either with or without a jury.
I should like to know whether it is intended that a decision of the judge on this point would be final, or whether a dissatisfied party would be entitled to appeal against that decision. Reference has been made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to the fact that there may be cases where it is valuable that a jury should be empanelled because of their sympathetic outlook. I have known cases where there was danger with a jury. They may be carried away by sympathy and may ignore the real issues involved in a case. One knows how many counsel have succeeded, by appeals to the sympathies of the jury, in securing a verdict which probably would never have been given by a judge sitting down coolly and considering the case from the point of view from which a case should be considered, on its merits as between party and party.
The Proviso at the end of Clause 6 is a most valuable one. If I am not mistaken, this is an entirely new departure in connection with the trial of civil cases. In complicated cases where there may be issues of fact, there is certainly an advantage in the fact that the judge, in ordering a trial by jury, can limit the issues to be considered by
the jury to questions of fact which he thinks are specially within the province of the jury. Cases where a charge of fraud is involved are essentially those which could be submitted to a jury, whereas other issues, in a trial in which a large number of issues were involved, might be considered by the judge. The procedure of submitting certain issues of fact to the jury while reserving other issues to the court itself, ought to work well.
I trust, with other members of the solicitors' profession in the House, that this Bill may have a speedy passage. I am certain, from the speeches which have been delivered in the other place, and speeches which I have heard here tonight, that the two Clauses to which special reference has been made will certainly be of advantage from three points of view—expedition in litigation, the removal of uncertainty and the reduction of costs, which have advanced so much in recent years.

10.40 p.m.

Sir GEORGE JONES: I desire to say a few words in reference to Clause 4 of the Bill, which deals with certain proceedings to which the Crown is a party. I think that everyone will agree—at any rate, those who are members of the Junior Bar—that the present procedure as between Crown and subject is archaic, cumbrous and expensive. The proposals made in the Bill, as far as they go, are good, but I would ask the Attorney-General whether he cannot go further. As I read Clause 4, it merely provides that in the case of a debt due to the Crown there will be a simplification of the procedure, and that the action may proceed by writ or County Court summons as the case may be. Would it not be possible for all actions by the Crown and all actions against the Crown to be put on the same basis as actions between subject and subject? In nearly all other countries in the world there is uniformity of procedure so far as regards the trial of issues of fact between the Government and the subject, and subject and subject and I think that, while His Majesty's Government are making this reform, they might go one stage further and say that the whole procedure in regard to actions between the Crown and the subject will be simplified once and for all.
If I am in order, I should like to suggest that the time has arrived when the Crown might be responsible for the torts of its servants, in the same way in which private persons are. If a servant of the Crown commits an act of negligence, there is no remedy, though it is true that as an act of grace the Government usually pay. Although it is not strictly within the ambit of this Bill, I should like to suggest that the subject might be given the same right against the Crown as regards torts of its servants as he has against a fellow-subject. I desire also to say a word on the Clause which deals with the question of trial by jury. Although I am a member of the Common Law Bar, I agree with the proposal to limit the right to trial by jury in civil cases. I think most members of the Junior Bar will admit that, if one is right, there is no need for a jury, and it is better to have a judge alone, but the real temptation to ask for a jury is when one is uncertain about the merits of the case, and think one will stand a better chance before 12 men who are not used to weighing evidence than before a judge alone. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has said that he thought that in all actions involving character there should be the right to trial by jury, but, for my part, I would suggest that any man whose character is involved is safer in the hands of a judge than in the hands of a jury. It is certain that, if a man's character is attacked and a judge tries the issue, the judge will insist on absolutely strict proof, which is not always the case with a jury.
Whatever else may be done, I hope that the exceptions to trial by judges only will not be enlarged. I can quite appreciate that the (a) and (b) classes of exception are largely supported by public opinion, but I think that it is really a concession to public prejudice, and I trust that the Government will not enlarge the exceptions for which provision is already made. I would only point out that in the Chancery Court actions of this very class are tried by a judge alone, and have been so tried for very many years, with extremely satisfactory results. As has already been pointed out, in the county courts also, where there is a right of trial by jury, in many cases it has dropped out of use, everyone being satisfied with trial
by the judge alone. I am certain that the elimination of the jury must lead to a large saving of time, and, therefore, of expense in the hearing of actions, because one knows that trial by a judge results in a much quicker hearing than trial by a jury. The judge can give an intimation that on a certain point he has come to a particular decision, but that is impossible in the case of a jury, and the hearing has to proceed at full length.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol has said that there is congestion in the New Procedure List, but that has not been my experience. I understand that even to-day, at the end of June, dates are given for the early part of October in the New Procedure List. The hon. and learned Member shakes his head, but it was so two days ago. That is a wonderful tribute to the speed of hearing of actions when once we get quit of the trial by jury of issues of fact, which a judge is not only as fit, but much more fit, to try than a common, or even a special jury. For these reasons I support the Bill, but I hope the Government will be able to go a good deal further in regard to Clause 4.

10.45 p.m.

Captain JAMES LOCKWOOD: I rise to support the Bill as a practising solicitor of many years experience. Although it seems a very simple Measure, it is one of far-reaching importance. I think it is our duty, as the junior branch of the profession, to put the points that arise on it before the House as we see them in the course of our daily practice. It seems to me that it is admitted that the administration of justice will not be in the least impaired by the abolition of grand juries. It is our experience that they make for expense, if anything they retard the speed with which justice is administered and, in fact, they are only a historical survival of an old system.
With regard to the question of the modification of the right to trial by jury in civil actions, as outlined in Clause 4, I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether it is a fact that the right to order a trial by jury will be a matter for the judge or for the master to decide on a summons for directions and, if it is for the master to decide, whether under the provisions of this Clause there will be as of right an appeal to the
judge from the decision of the master. It is true that the system of trial by jury of recent years has been abused, and it is well known among those who have to administer the law that the question whether a matter is tried by a judge alone, or by a judge and jury, is often a question whether the plaintiff thinks he may or may not get greater damages with the jury, because in some cases it is thought that the sympathies of the jury are more easily swayed than the learned opinion of a judge who is constantly used to the administration of the law. It is my sincere opinion that this restriction upon trial by jury will not in the least impair justice. There is no doubt that provision is made in Clause 6 for all cases that are eminently suitable for trial by jury and I think that Clause will meet with support from most practising solicitors in the country.
With regard to proceedings by the Crown against a subject, I am sorry that it is only now that a very great difficulty is being remedied. For many years the Crown has been able to bring upon the subject an avalanche of litigation in taxation matters the costs of which, if he fought the matter as he might legitimately think he was entitled to do, would be so big as to prevent his having access to the Courts for justice simply because of the weight. of the costs involved. It may be that the Crown, for the purpose of deciding a principle of taxation, may seize upon a subject who has only a very small amount involved. In particular cases that subject, if he is to get justice, has to fight Government Departments with all the Law Officers behind them, and they may regard the matter as of transcendent importance and take the case from the Courts of Justice to the Court of Appeal, and so on to the House of Lords. In many cases, to my own knowledge, a subject has not dared to seek the protection of the courts in case an avalanche of litigation is brought upon him.
I am sure the whole country ought to be obliged to the Government for bringing this Clause forward. It makes it possible for the courts to make an order for costs against the Crown, but I think there should be an addition to this Clause so that when there is a case deciding an
important principle which is brought against one subject, but which might just as well be brought against another subject, the judge who conducts the trial should have power to certify that this is a case which affects the general administration of the Revenue Department or whoever may be involved, and that the particular subject against whom the action is brought shall be indemnified at any rate for his part of the costs. I submit that contention to the learned Solicitor-General for his serious consideration, because the Government are going some way to meet the difficulty in the Clause as drawn, and I think it would be a very fair act if they would go a little further
There is only one other point I want to deal with, and that is in Clause 3. with regard to the power of the court to deal with liability to Death Duties. I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General whether this Clause makes provision for the case where there is a question as to the valuation of securities or assets for Death Duty purposes? It is within my own experience that subjects are unfairly dealt with, because at the moment there does not seem to be any speedy method of arriving at the value of assets which are submitted to the Crown for the purpose of assessing Death Duties. The Crown sometimes seeks to make the value of securities the value which is quoted in the Stock Exchange list for that particular period or day. If the asset happens to be a solid block of industrial securities, the value quoted in the Stock Exchange list for the day has no relation whatever to the sale of huge blocks. There are other similar cases. What I want to know is whether this Clause does not provide for the executor, or administrator, to make application to the court for the ascertainment of the value of any particular assets? Will the Attorney-General explain the provision, for the purpose of accomplishing the object I have submitted. Subject to these remarks this Bill is a wonderful step forward in the administration of justice and its simplification, and we welcome it as it is. But I do wish the Solicitor-General would go a step forward in the. direction I have submitted for his consideration.

10.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The general welcome given
to the Bill would make it unnecessary for me to say anything by way of reply, but for the fact that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and other hon. Members have asked that certain particular questions shall be answered, and I will answer them briefly. The hon. and gallant Member for Shipley (Captain Lockwood), who has just spoken, asked a question with regard to juries and how the matter will be decided. The answer is that it will be dealt with in the first instance by the Master, subject to an appeal to the judge, and, of course, technically subject to an appeal from the judge, though experience shows that when a judge has exercised his discretion in the matter it is not very much use asking that his decision shall be upset.
I was asked to deal with the question of delay in jury cases. I have not any exact statistics, but, generally speaking, the position is that as far as trial by jury in London is concerned there has been no marked improvement, at any rate, in the situation during the last year, and it is true to say that jury cases in London are more in arrear than cases in the big provincial cities. It is precisely for that reason we are asking for the right to curtail trial by jury, because it is the enormous time spent in trying cases on circuit by jury, and to some extent in London, which makes the demands on judicial time, particularly of the judges on circuit. It leads to an accumulation of arrears in London. It is hoped that a very considerable improvement will result from the curtailment of juries.
I was asked about a number of matters which are not dealt with in the Bill. I doubt very much whether matters of that sort would come within the scope of the Bill. Let us see what the Bill is intended to do. The Master of the Rolls Committee has made an interim report with the object of making certain suggestions to which immediate effect should be given for the expedition of trials and the cheapening of litigation. We are not attempting to deal with the whole scope of legal reform. We are trying to get this Bill through in order that those particular remedies may be applied at once. If we were to try to bring about the reform of every controversial subject, it would be impossible to deal with them this Session. We desire to get the immediate reforms
through which the Hanworth Committee has suggested which will at once result in remedying the present state of delay and expense.
The other point with which I must deal is the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol with regard to the right of trial by jury in actions in which character is involved. The hon. and learned Member particularly raised the question of actions of wrongful dismissal. Wrongful dismissal may or may not raise questions of character. There are many actions of wrongful dismissal in which character is no more at stake than it is in any other case. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to say, as the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has already said, that every single action may not raise a question of character. Everybody's character is at stake where there is conflict of evidence and where the judge has to find, on one side or the other, which evidence is true. The difficulty is in finding any form of words which would cover the situation. I suggest to the House that the real solution is to leave the matter to the discretion of the judge. In any case, where character was really at stake, in a wrongful dismissal or any other action, the judge would certainly order a trial by jury. It would really be found that that was the proper way to deal with the situation.

10.59 p.m.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I had hoped that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General would have absolved me from the necessity of speaking by dealing further with the question of grand juries, about which I still feel some anxiety. There is, I think, an overwhelming case for the abolition of grand juries in the great cities such as London, Liverpool, and Manchester, where considerable expense is involved by the calling of grand juries and where the administration of justice is such as to make their existence unnecessary; but there are other places where the grand jury might still, without undue expense to the public, fulfil a very useful function. Suppose it came to pass that we had in this country a Fascist Government which created a whole mass of new offences—such as holding views disrespectful to the Government. It might quite easily come to pass that our present majority might pass
away. We have a great majority in the House now, but if the Government go on pretending to be an old woman missing the omnibus, their majority may pass and a Government led by the right hon. Gentleman opposite may take their place, and make a most frightful hash of things. Then there might come a Fascist Government which might pass emergency legislation creating a whole series of new offences, against which the grand jury might be a very constitutional safeguard, and prove of immense value.
Unless a really strong case can be put up for the abolition of grand juries, I would most seriously ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether in cases where the grand jury does not involve heavy expenditure, it might not be retained. It has been of value in the past, and I think it is well within the realm of possibility that it may be of great value in the future. A case might arise—I do not say that it will arise—when a grand jury would refuse to find a true bill for offences which by the common-sense view would not be offences, but which would be offences under a newly-passed Act of Parliament. In such a case the grand jury might be a real constitutional safeguard. Of course, a Fascist Government might abolish that safeguard in time, but that might take a year or more, and in the meantime the grand jury might be of immense value. I admit that there is solid reason in some cases for abolishing the grand jury, where it has to be summoned many times in the year and where there are a great number of witnesses whose attendance involves expense, in such places as London, Liverpool, Manchester, and possibly other great cities, but in the ordinary case of the counties where no great expense is involved, I think there is a case for retaining this constitutional safeguard which might be of great importance in years to come. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider retaining grand juries in cases where they will not involve expense, unless he can show much stronger reason than he has shown for their abolition.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Certain reductions in remuneration to be disregarded for purposes of superannuation.)

11.5 p.m.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after the word "computing," to insert the words "for purposes relating to superannuation."
The Clause refers to contributions to be made by persons entitled to superannuation rights by virtue of enactments relating to superannuation, but contributions are in many cases being paid by persons who are not entitled to superannuation rights. It is thought the words of the Amendment are necessary.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 9, leave out from the word "by," to the end of the paragraph, and insert instead thereof the words "any person."

In line 13, leave out the words "a person so entitled," and insert instead thereof the words "any person."

In line 15, leave out the words "under that enactment," and insert instead thereof the words "by or in respect of any person."

In line 18, leave out the words "a person so entitled as aforesaid," and insert instead thereof the words "any person."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

Sir H. JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "October," and to insert instead thereof the word "September."
The Minister of Health in his circular 1222 dealt with the question of reduction of local expenditure generally and anticipated that officers of local government service would be prepared to make their contribution to the emergency. This was dated 11th September, 1931. It is understood that in one case arrangements for a reduction in remuneration on account of national economic conditions were made prior to the 31st October, and
there may be other cases. In these circumstances it is proposed to substitute 1st September, 1931, for 1st October, 1931.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words: "then holder of the post in question," and to insert instead thereof the words: "person whose remuneration was reduced."
There is no previous reference in the Bill to the word "post." The previous provision relates to "a person," and in these circumstances the word "post" seems hardly appropriate and its effect would not be very clear. The words I propose are considered to be preferable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 2, line 15, leave out the word "thirtieth," and insert instead thereof the word"first."—[Sir H. Jachson.]

Sir H. JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out the words:
April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two,
and to insert instead thereof the words:
October, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.
This is an important Amendment. The effect of Sub-section (2) as it stands will be that the provision will only apply in the case of an understanding that a reduction should not affect the superannuation if the reduction had in fact taken place before 1st April, 1932, It is, however, understood that there are cases in which a reduction on account of the national economic conditions first took place after that date. Moreover, it is submitted that reductions on account of these economic conditions have been made for the first time subsequent to the issue of Circular No. 1311 from the Ministry of Health on 22nd March, 1933. In that Circular reference was made to the Circular of 11th September, 1931, and it was there suggested that the matter should be handled by authorities in the spirit referred to in that Circular. May I quote the Minister's own words:
The Minister is confident that local officials, whether salaried or wage-earners, will be found ready in the future, as they have been in the past, to respond to the needs of the time.
I therefore venture to suggest to the Minister that it would be inequitable that officers whose remuneration was reduced for the first time on account of national economic conditions subsequent to 1st April, 1932, should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I submit that the Bill should cover cases in which reductions occurred for the first time before 1st October, 1933.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid that I cannot consent to this Amendment. The object of this Bill is to make legal understandings entered into between local authorities and their employes which were in fact illegal but which at the time they were made were made in good faith. We have, however, chosen the period between 1st September—according to the Amendment of my hon. Friend—and 1st April, 1932, because by that time the various associations had been informed by the Ministry that if any further agreements were made they were ultra vires, and that therefore local authorities who made such agreements after that date did so in the knowledge that they were breaking the law. If we accepted the hon. Member's Amendment, I am afraid it would undermine the whole basis of the Bill, and I therefore cannot assent to it.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not supporting in terms the hon. Member's Amendment, because I think it is quite clear that an agreement concluded after the introduction of this Bill creates a difficult position for the hon. Member to sustain. But those who have any knowledge of the negotiations between local authorities and their officers and servants know that in many cases these negotiations take quite a long time to carry into effect. This bombshell on local authorities fell towards the end of August, 1931. A large number of officers and servants agreed to a reduction of salaries on condition that arrangements were made to deal with the problem of superannuation. Large numbers of difficulties may occur in the interval, and to say that authorities acted ultra vires—and indeed illegally—but that they are being blessed if they were only illegal up to April of last year does not seem to me to be a strong point on the Government side. If it be admitted that there is a case for
Parliamentary intervention where local authorities, acting in good faith, have broken the law, then it seems to me six months is too short a period. I hope the Government are prepared to be reasonable on this matter. As I say, I do not support the Amendment which proposes to insert October, 1933, but why not insert October, 1932, and allow a year for the completion of negotiations which were started as a result of the Government's policy? I understand that bona fide agreements have been reached after April of last year the negotiation of which began as a result of the Government's policy about the end of August, 1931. I realise that the Amendment might have implications extending further than local government officers, but the Government, having accepted the principle of regularising an illegal action by local authorities, ought to be sufficiently logical to make certain that any associations of employes and local authorities who in good faith started negotiations on the basis of the Government policy should be able to take advantage of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary might be prepared to accept a compromise which would be nearer to his date than the date proposed by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). As between April of last year and October of this year, it seems reasonable to suggest that October of this year should be the date inserted in the Bill.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am sure it is the desire of the Government, in carrying through this Bill, the necessity of which they fully recognised on the Second Reading, to leave no rough edges. It would be a great pity if, here and there, local government officers were left with a sense of grievance. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government, but, according to the information put before us, if the date to which the Government are at present adhering is finally inserted in the Bill, there will be in some localities officers deprived of the justice which the Bill is intended to give. It would be a great pity if that hardship were imposed on a few officers left outside the scheme. Even the opponents of the Bill, I am sure, desire that it should be a clean-cut Bill including all those whom it is intended to benefit. I make the
suggestion that if the Government are not able to accept the date proposed in the Amendment they should include the date of the passing of the Bill or 1st June. It is clear that the difficulty which the Bill is intended to meet has continued up to recent times. No hardship would be caused to anybody by this proposal. No burden is imposed and nobody is asked to pay a penny piece of any obligation which they are not anxious to discharge. No local authority will object and the Government have no share of the burden. As the Government are out to meet a difficulty for which no one has been responsible, they should meet it fully instead of leaving a few here and there excluded from its scope. If the date which I suggest were adopted difficulties would be avoided.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I want to controvert the arguments of the last two speakers. The date proposed by the Government is quite the latest date that could possibly be incorporated in the Bill. By that date the position of this matter had been made clear to everybody, and I think the Bill of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) had been introduced. Any local authority which embarked on these arrangements after that date knew very well that they were performing an illegal action, and they ought not to be safeguarded. I suggest that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot) is wrong when he says that this would not inflict a burden on anybody. It would inflict a burden on the rating authorities, which they are not ready to bear, and I, for one, dissent entirely from the theory that local authorities should be allowed to commit illegal actions, knowingly, at the expense of the ratepayers.

Amendment negatived.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after the word "understanding," to insert the words "between the parties concerned."
I have an Amendment later on to make it clear that officers or servants to whom the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, applies shall be brought within the Bill. They might be brought in, but whether in fact they do obtain the advantages of the Bill depends upon whether there is an understanding on the matter,
and I move this Amendment to raise that question. I understand the Ministry of Health are prepared to consider their inclusion in the Bill, but there is some doubt as to whether an understanding arrived at between the Mental Hospitals Association and those employed at mental hospitals is a bona fide understanding within the terms of the Bill. Medical officers, nurses, clerks, and stewards in mental hospitals were prepared to accept a reduction of salary when the Government came into office, but they all naturally, like other public servants, desired to protect their superannuation rights, and what I regard as an understanding was reached. It may be that the Mental Hospitals Association has no authority to impose any understanding that it may reach with the British Medical Association or my friends of the Mental Hospital Workers Union; or the Clerks and Stewards' Association, but this raises the question of when an understanding is not an understanding.
It appears now that certain understandings are understandigs, in the opinion of the Minister of Health, but as regards this section of the public service, who perform both onerous and very important duties, an understanding is not an understanding. I am told that the organisations concerned, the employing authority, and those who serve the employing authority, have asked to discuss this question with the Minister, but that he refuses to do so. A document has been circulated which is regarded merely as a circular, but I think it is clear that there was an understanding between the Mental Hospitals Association and the bodies of officers and servants employed by their individual members that in consideration of their accepting voluntarily a reduction of salaries and wages, superannuation rights should be maintained. If the spirit of this Bill is to operate, the Government ought to include within its terms people in the mental hospitals service. I am not complaining about the people who have been brought into the Bill. Indeed, on Second Beading I said that I thought the Bill ought to be cast in wider terms; but here is a body of people whose services to the community are undoubted, and who responded to the Government's appeal for sacrifices but did their best to protect their superannuation rights and were given undertakings, as far as those
undertakings could be given, by the Mental Hospitals Association. Now there is a doubt whether they are within the terms of the Bill or not. I am not saying that the words I move will necessarily bring them into the Bill, but I am satisfied that there is no point in my second Amendment to bring them into the Bill if the understanding which they have reached between persons concerned is not regarded by the Minister as an understanding. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an assurance that the understanding as I regard it, reached between the mental hospital authorities on the one hand, and those they employ on the other, will be regarded as an understanding within the terms of the Bill.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the asylums officers will be treated in exactly the same way as anybody else. They will be included in this Bill if in fact an understanding was made in good faith. I am not prepared at this moment to say whether the circular to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is evidence of that understanding, but I assume that the case will be treated on its merits like the case of every other officer of a local authority. I presume that an understanding would have been reached between the visiting committees and their officers, and if the understanding was made between them in good faith, they will come in the Bill like any other officer. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that if this Amendment were accepted it would make it far more difficult for them to come in.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should like to press the Parliamentary Secretary a bit further. We are getting now to what an understanding is. I am not prepared to accept that the mental hospitals are not acting in good faith, but is an understanding a national understanding between a national organisation and national bodies representing those who are employed; or is an understanding a local agreement between the local authority and representatives of the employes of the local authority? As I understand the Parliamentary Secretary, the question resolves itself into whether the individual visiting committees and
mental hospital authorities have a bona fide understanding with the people they employ. If it can be shown by documentary evidence that there is such an understanding, I conclude from what the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is within the terms of the Bill. But do I take it that a national agreement does not come within the terms of the Bill, and that whether people do benefit will depend upon local negotiations between local authorities?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sorry that I did not make it plain. Every fact will be taken into consideration. If agreements have been reached between national bodies that, of course, may be material. But I went on to say that there may have been local agreements, and they will be considered too. Every relevant point will be considered in deciding whether individual persons come under it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Government Departments always "consider every relevant point." That is a term of art. But it does not quite answer my question. The Parliamentary Secretary pushed the responsibility back on to the individual visiting committees. My original case was that the Mental Hospitals' Association, which represents the majority of mental hospital authorities in this country, and certain national bodies, including the British Medical Association, did arrive at an understanding. Then we were. told by the Parliamentary Secretary that it will he a matter for each visiting committee and I wanted to know whether an agreement was an agreement when it was national or only when it was local. We get the answer that it may be both. That is not helping us very much. There is another stage to this Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at this question, and possibly define what an understanding is, because it is not in the least clear in the Bill, he will help us. If he will do that I will not press the point any further now, but I really do think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary ought to look at this point and help the House to come to some comprehension of what is an understanding within the terms of this Bill. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.32 p.m.

Captain ELLISTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
or is the subject of an agreement in writing made before or within three months after the passing of this Act between the person whose remuneration has been reduced or from which a deduction has been made and the authority to whom such contribution as aforesaid, if any, in respect of such person is payable or by whom a superannuation allowance to him is or would in the future become payable providing that such reduction or deduction shall not affect the amount of his superannuation allowance.
Some of us feel very strongly that this Amendment is essential unless considerable injustice is to be done to a number of local government officers. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) quoted a case in regard to the mental hospital workers which illustrates very clearly the invidious distinctions which some of us believe will be made under this Bill. I have heard something of the circumstances in which the association of mental hospital workers are placed to-day. On the publication of the original Memorandum of the Ministry of Health, No. 1122, in September, 1931, that association, anxious to respond to the appeal of the Ministry, immediately met to see whether they could suggest any reduction. In due course they consulted the British Medical Association and the Royal Medico-Psychological Association and other bodies interested in the welfare of these workers and they submitted a scale of reductions which was welcomed and accepted by the authorities concerned, that is the visiting committees.
In due course the Ministry of Health pointed out that, subject to the amendment of the Asylum Workers' Superannuation Act, the pensions must be based on the actual salary paid. The association passed on that warning to the local authorities, and what happened? Of 66 hospitals outside London advised by that association, nine made no reductions, and are therefore not affected by this Bill; 24 of the hospitals, anxious to safeguard the pension rights of their officers, and seeing what other authorities were doing, continued to make superannuation deductions based on the original scale. They ignored the warning of the Ministry of Health. Twenty-seven other hospitals, that wished to do the right thing, acted on the advice of the Ministry.
The position under the Bill would be that those hospitals which defied the Ministry, or ignored the Ministry's advice, are to be whitewashed or indemnified, while the 27 which felt themselves bound to act in accordance with the Ministry's advice will be outside the terms of the Bill. The idea of this Amendment is that local authorities should have a chance of reconsidering their position in regard to this Bill, and if it were right and proper, to adjust the superannuation cut in the case of those persons whose pensions they wished to secure. I was somewhat reassured by the statement of the Under-Secretary that every case would be considered on its merits, but if the Ministry are right in their present belief that those hospitals which loyally and promptly accepted the ruling of the Ministry ought to be penalised, while those who defied the Ministry are to be whitewashed and regularised, a big injustice will be done to a large number of local government officers.
In the final Circular issued by the Ministry in this connection, barely three months ago, there was a statement that unequal treatment, in this matter of local government officers,
must give rise to dissatisfaction and even to discontent among the officials.
Is it too much to hope that this Amendment, which would remove any possibility of grievance, will be accepted, in order to enable local authorities to do what they consider justice to the members of their staffs?

11.38 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am very sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. I am particularly sorry, because I know the interest that the hon. Member takes in these cases. The Amendment cuts at the principle of the Bill, which is non-contentious where there is an understanding that a cut in remuneration should not affect pensions, and the Bill gives effect to that purpose. The Amendment would bring in cases of cuts which were not made with that understanding, but were made with the knowledge that the cut to lower pay must be followed by lower pensions. That is against the spirit of the Bill. There is another reason which makes the Amendment unaccept-
able, which is that the principle is applied first to personal pension, which is against the principle of all Superannuation Acts.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: Will the hon. Gentleman say, where, in the Bill, is the liability on these claims in writing? I gather that, as the law stands, the agreements would not be binding upon the local authorities. Have his legal advisers considered whether, in that event, the persons who signed the agreement would or would not be liable? Although I am not venturing to express an opinion on the point, it strikes me as a possibility that a person signing might be held liable as having signed on behalf of the authority an agreement which was ultra vires, and I should like to know whether that would be the case.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will consider that point before Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out the words "fund to which a local authority contributes," and to insert instead thereof the words
superannuation fund established or administered by a local authority.
This is a purely drafting Amendment, to make plain what sort of fund it is.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 41, at the end, insert the words "or fund."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

11.42 p.m

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
(iii) officers or servants to whom the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, applies.
It is not clear to me from the Clause whether asylums officers are included under it or not. I understood, from a letter which the Minister sent to the Mental Hospitals Association, that he was considering that point. The Parliamentary Secretary says now that these agreements are to be considered on their merits, and, if he can assure me that asylums officers and others in the mental hospital service are within the scope of
the Bill, I shall not press this Amendment. If, however, they are not, I must try to persuade him to accept it.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that asylums officers, being appointed by the council or visiting committee—which comes within the definition of a local authority under the Local Loans Act— come within paragraph (i) of this Sub-section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Retrospective effect of Act and consequential adjustments.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 3, leave out the word "October," and insert instead thereof the word"September."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

Clauses 3 (Determination of questions arising under Act) and 4 (Saving for certain Acts) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 40, leave out the word "rights," and insert instead thereof the words "superannuation fund, and superannuation scheme."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

11.45 p.m.

Sir H. JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
'reduction' in relation to remuneration includes a reduction by way of deduction or refund.
While reductions in salary have been made in some cases, there are others where salaries have not been reduced but reductions from salary have been made and the amounts refunded to the authority as a contribution towards the financial emergency. The expression
"reduction" is used in the Bill and it is desirable to make it clear that it includes any such deduction or refund.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that "reduction" means plain reduction, deduction or refund.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 6 (Application to Scotland) and 7 (Short Title and Extent,) ordered to stand part of the Bill,

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

SEA FISHING INDUSTRY [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for regulating the catching, landing, and sale of sea-fish, for the constitution of a Sea-fish Commission, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:

(a) of any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Board of Trade for the purpose of regulating the landing in the United Kingdom of sea-fish (including shell-fish); and
(b) of any expenses incurred, in accordance with the said Act, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or a Secretary of State in connection with the Sea-fish Commission constituted under the said Act."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned, the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.